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.

 

'Holocaust Denier' Goes on Trial in Austria

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
A British historian is set to appear before a court in Vienna, Austria on charges of denying the Holocaust had happened. Mr Irving however denied that he was a holocaust denier, claiming that it was all a 'filthy smear'.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The charges relate to a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Mr Irving's lawyer told the BBC his client would plead guilty.

Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


David Irving is the author of a 1977 book called 'Hitler's War', which looked at World War II from Hitler's perspective or as he says, "from behind the Fuehrer's desk".

The book contained the claim that up until 1943, Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust and did not give the order for the massacre of Europe's Jews. Mr Irving went further as to offer £1,000 to anyone who could produce a black-and-white document that would prove that Hitler had given such an order.

Most of his peers, however, found his views unacceptable and he was the focus of verbal attacks and was banned in Germany, Australia and Canada

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think it is horrible for him to get 3 years. Where did the freedom of speech go?
Horrible thing taking place right now. I think it is 7 european countries that have it illeagal to deny it.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Why is it that you can claim to have seen Elvis, or to have been abducted by aliens, or believe any number of unaccepted and ridiculed things without the least peep out of any government, but revise this one bit of conventional history and you go to prison? Where there's smoke there's fire. Someone has something to hide. If I questioned how many millions Stalin murdered, would anyone care? If I sought to revise the numbers of Mao's victims would I be arrested? Pol Pot is fair game. Me thinks they dost protest too much.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Now tell that to the danish Muhammad caricatures supporters.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can insult, offend, blasphemies and most importantly, distort the truth. Having such freedom means more responsibility and offending another through your works and shielding yourself with the freedom of speech is totally unacceptable.

I am against the Muhammad caricatures, Mr Irvings distorted history or Iran's call for holocaust cartoon constest. Such works are no better than cow's manure because they aren't beneficial to anyone and only brings people apart.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
A British historian is set to appear before a court in Vienna, Austria on charges of denying the Holocaust had happened. Mr Irving however denied that he was a holocaust denier, claiming that it was all a 'filthy smear'.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The charges relate to a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Mr Irving's lawyer told the BBC his client would plead guilty.

Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


David Irving is the author of a 1977 book called 'Hitler's War', which looked at World War II from Hitler's perspective or as he says, "from behind the Fuehrer's desk".

The book contained the claim that up until 1943, Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust and did not give the order for the massacre of Europe's Jews. Mr Irving went further as to offer £1,000 to anyone who could produce a black-and-white document that would prove that Hitler had given such an order.

Most of his peers, however, found his views unacceptable and he was the focus of verbal attacks and was banned in Germany, Australia and Canada

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk


more importantly has anybody tried to claim to £1,000 reward and has anybody been able to show any proof to win the money.

becuase i think thats the only way to prove someone wrong by showing facts so far from the looks of it he's winning assuming nobody has come forward.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Freedom of speech does not mean you can insult, offend, blasphemies and most importantly, distort the truth. Having such freedom means more responsibility and offending another through your works and shielding yourself with the freedom of speech is totally unacceptable.

Unfortunately, you're wrong here. Freedom of speech allows a person to remain ignorant and abrasive for as long as they live. Rather, I should say, it doesn't address the problem at all.

This allows a person to burn the flag, to protest at a soldier's funeral, and make all sorts of insults if they choose.

Now whether a person shows good manners, or compassion, is another thing...



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
People should be able to say/think what they want.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
what would happen if a reporter asked bush why he staged 911 with the help of zionist jews at a press conferance?

now imagine that 2000 fold

now you see the guy is getting not so bad treatment



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
What happened to Freedom of Speech?

I guess Insulting an event that took place in history is worst than insulting a Religon.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

what would happen if a reporter asked bush why he staged 911 with the help of zionist jews at a press conferance?


Nothing, they would simply ignore him/her and move on to the next question, if that person keeps insisting upon distracting the president then he/she would probably get escorted out.

However I do agree that imprisoning people for their views or thoughts no mater how moronic or ignorant they may be is simply wrong and absurd. As someone once said -I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend with death your right to say it.-
These European countries that make it illegal to think or have certain views are more like Hitler than they can imagine.


Also, the lack of outrage for these sort for laws in western nation is appalling and it speaks volumes.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
David Irving is quite simply using his "freedom of speech" to promote hatred of the Jews! He's not attempting to have a legitimate debate about some facet of the Holocaust, he's pushing an agenda of hate. In Austria, this is a crime..."when in Rome".



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
David Irving is quite simply using his "freedom of speech" to promote hatred of the Jews! He's not attempting to have a legitimate debate about some facet of the Holocaust, he's pushing an agenda of hate. In Austria, this is a crime..."when in Rome".


thats simply untrue. he quite a nice guy and extreamly well mannered. he may say stuff which may make some people feel "uncomfortable" and yes he is having a legitimate debate about the holocaust the only difference is people do not want to debate him but call him a racist and point fingers.

he is not a hate monger. all he is doing is asking for debate on the holocaust using freedom of speach unless he actually uses racist words to describe jews or physically attacks jews while shouting "white power" then he may be spreading hate but all he done upto now is write books and say a few things which no one has bothered to debate with him instead they have called him a hate monger.

am no im not a racist and white supreamist, im not even caucasion my family comes from south asia and i was born in england so this isnt support for him becuase im racist.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I personally cant believe that David Irving was sentenced to jail for his comments, its freedom of speech for gods sake. Maybe it is not liked what he says, but thats part of democracy, the old phrase springs to mind;

"I May Not Like What You Are Saying, But I Will Fight Till The Death To Defend Your Right To Say It"

All that Mr Irving is doing is questioning the answer, and what is wrong with that? We dont know for sure that the holocaust happened, we choose to believe what we are told, and the people who dont, step forward Mr Irving, are singled out and made an example of when they dont believe what we are being fed.

Personally, I do believe that the holocaust happened, as there is lots of evidence proving this, but its just what you choose to believe, its definately not right for someone who has a different opinion to be sent to prison, surely the adult and grown up thing to do would be to sit down and discuss it all, and by compareing facts, come to a settlement, but as we know this would never happen.

And what most people say and do to get rid of people like Mr Irving is call them racists, when in fact they are totally not, just because you question the holocaust, does not make you a racist, and i resent anybody who says that is the case.

What ever happened to freedom of speech ay?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Conspirator_101]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Conspirator_101]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspirator_101
I personally cant believe that David Irving was sentenced to jail for his comments, its freedom of speech for gods sake. Maybe it is not liked what he says, but thats part of democracy, the old phrase springs to mind;

"I May Not Like What You Are Saying, But I Will Fight Till The Death To Defend Your Right To Say It"

All that Mr Irving is doing is questioning the answer, and what is wrong with that? We dont know for sure that the holocaust happened, we choose to believe what we are told, and the people who dont, step forward Mr Irving, are singled out and made an example of when they dont believe what we are being fed.

Personally, I do believe that the holocaust happened, as there is lots of evidence proving this, but its just what you choose to believe, its definately not right for someone who has a different opinion to be sent to prison, surely the adult and grown up thing to do would be to sit down and discuss it all, and by compareing facts, come to a settlement, but as we know this would never happen.

What ever happened to freedom of speech ay?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Conspirator_101]


he didnt actually fully deny the holocaust he questioned & challeneged certain events within that peroid.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspirator_101

What ever happened to freedom of speech ay?



Nothing, why do you ask?

In the US it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater

and in Austria Holocaust denial is forbidden.

If you go there, just follow their laws and everything will be ok.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Wow, the extent to which people can simply take this lightly and shrug it off is simply amazing! Imagine if the roles were reversed and a Jew was imprisoned for saying how evil the Nazis were, there would be outrage. But since its a white man its simply a racial issue or a hate issue. :shk:

A person should be allowed to think however he wants as long as he/she doesn't act out on whatever thoughts they might have. Should we employ thought police in the US to imprison people who think blacks are 'n-word's that belong on plantations? Wake up people that man’s freedom of speech was trampled upon and you sit here and say “oh well serve that racist right?” Sorry but I am simply revolted by that thought.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This allows a person to burn the flag, to protest at a soldier's funeral, and make all sorts of insults if they choose.

Now whether a person shows good manners, or compassion, is another thing...


Yes, ironically Freedom Of Speech/Freedom Of Expression allows you to do anything through any medium. However, in the European Convention Of Human Rights, Article 10 it says :



...freedom of speech...subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"...


European Convention Of Human Rights

Too bad the country he was in was part of the Convention, so it's no wonder he was punished. The law see him as fit to be dealt with. As you read the above link, freedom is never absolute and I don't think it should be.



Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.


Freedom Of Speech

Moreover, just for your information, most countries around the world restrict the Freedom Of Expression to a small extent but the law always keep on a watchful eye as to what the information is. Let me reiterate, they still have restrictions.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Interesting that this occurs in the home of the holocaust.

Austria has much blood on its hands yet chooses to go after a soft target: a nutty discredited historian who actually admitted during the trial he was wrong.

It's a failed attempt to assuage their own collective guilt and lack of effort in tracking down their own war criminals.

It also, perhaps, says to muslims that our defence of freedom of speech is partisan / religiously biased.

BTW Freedom of speech DOES include the right to 'blaspheme' or upset anyone who believes any stripe of fairy story - that's what freedom of speech means



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I have a not so simple question for the "free speech" advocates out there.

When does an individuals right of expression stop outweighing the right of a segment, a rather large one at that, of society to live in safety? No, David Irving has not vocally, at least to my knowledge, advocated the death of Jews, denied it maybe, but not advocated it. However, his most interested audiences do advocate said death. He is an enabler if nothing else.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

I have a not so simple question for the "free speech" advocates out there.

When does an individuals right of expression stop outweighing the right of a segment, a rather large one at that, of society to live in safety?


Like I said in my previous post, each individual is responsible for his/her actions. Of course if someone goes on a public stage and says something to the like of “I urge you to kill all the Jews...” Then by all means arrest that person for inciting violence. However, how can you hold someone responsible for how someone else interprets what you and me have to say when it is not a call for violence?


He is an enabler if nothing else.


Oh really, an enabler, eh? Ok then, we'll play that way. So just for the fun of it, lets imagine if we will, an anti war activists, who goes on public venues day after day calling for the removal of the president and his “regime”. Now again lets imagine that spectator X goes and murders certain members of the government. Now, should we go and arrest that prominent anti war activist because that is what spectator X took away from his/her statement?

Careful now, when you open Pandora's box there's no going back.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by WestPoint23]







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join