Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
John Simkin

Holocaust Denial

Recommended Posts

Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.

Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought.

You haven't explained how his prison sentence was justified.

You're merely name calling--once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.

Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought.

You haven't explained how his prison sentence was justified.

The instruction of fools is folly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Comment is free" says the Gruaniad - but it tends to be quite unfree on this topic and the Guardian is a prime offender.

This one must have slipped in under the radar.

I imagine someone in the Guardian editorial offices will get fried as a result.

The key paragraph is the penultimate (emphasis added).

Answer? There really isn't one, is there?

Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?

A step too far?

John Hooper

May 18, 2007 9:00 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_h...ep_too_far.html

Should Holocaust deniers be prevented from airing their views? And, if so, how far is it right to go in stopping them? The questions arise because of what happened over here on Thursday night in the central Italian university city of Teramo.

Robert Faurisson, a retired academic who has been convicted five times in his native France for denying crimes against humanity, had been invited by a member of the staff to give a lecture. His host is one Claudio Moffa, a professor who run the university's master's programme in Middle Eastern studies.

Moffa was asked by the university authorities to think again. He refused. So the rector, Mauro Mattioli, decided the only thing left was to temporarily shut down the university, which he did.

He said his decision was forced on him by security considerations. In a statement, the university authorities spoke of a "climate of tension that could endanger the safety of students".

Indeed, when Faurisson tried earlier today to speak at a hotel, there were scuffles with protesters and the event was cancelled. However, it is also worth noting that the rector had been given a clear indication by Italy's centre-left government of what was expected of him.

In a letter quoted by La Repubblica, the higher education minister, Fabio Mussi, said "inviting to an Italian campus a figure ... who denies the gravity of the Shoah has no academic merit, but merely bears witness to a mediocre provocation".

For professor Moffa, on the other hand, it is a question of academic and intellectual freedom. His website vaunts a declaration of support for his initiative, signed by more than 20 other Italian academics.

The professor claims that he is not himself a Holocaust denier. But his most recent relevant posting to the site is entitled "Why Faurisson and the 'deniers' convince me more and more".

Picking up on the prison sentence given to David Irving and the various penalties inflicted on his guest, he poses the following question: "Why is ... judicial harassment that smacks of manic obsession necessary if the arguments of Faurisson and Co are indeed 'unfounded'?"

Answers anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?

In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?

In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.

You miss my central point, Andy.

"Sane people", on whose behalf you are apparently qualified to speak, may "conclude that there is really nothing to debate" about many topics.

However, they rarely feel the need to enforce their sense of certainty with harassment, legal bans, imprisonment, beatings and the occasional murder.

One is reminded of witchcraft trials so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller.

The quintessential example of a group of people who've concluded "there is really nothing to debate" is a lynch pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?

In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.

One is reminded of witchcraft trials so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller.

It is evident here that only you are reminded by this when confronted with those awful people you seek to defend and whose far right views you seek to forward - your central points I presume :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×