Don Jeffries Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Don, I encourage you to look further into it, I have - everyone should. I find most of the examples that you cite to be out of context, with the exception of the one re: Pres. Bush - he can sue if the statement is libelous or slanderous. The fact that the jury decided the way it did could not be more relevant, especially for Mr. Zundel. The fact that Mr. Zundel's convictions could result in increased interest in his " cause " is not a problem that is lost on anyone knowledgeable about the subject. However, to do nothing , is nothing less than appeasement - now, that road has been well travelled before, hasn't it ?. Ian, I'm not really interested in debating the whole Zundel trial. My point is; why was he on trial in the first place? I think he and other revisionists are persuasive, but that's irrelevant to my main point, which is that no thought or opinion should be illegal. Unless, of course, someone is advocating real violence against someone. There is no evidence that Zundel, a pacifist, ever advocated violence against anyone. Even if I agreed with you that Zundel's opinions were wrong, it is still against everything Americans are supposed to stand for to put him in prison for that. Remember the Scopes trial? Would you have supported putting that teacher in prison for teaching the "false doctrine" of evolution? There are lots of ideas and opinions we could try people for, and find juries that would easily discover that and convict them. Should we do that? Again, it's irrelevant whether you, or I, or the jury found Zundel persuasive or not. The question is; what was a non-violent man like that doing on trial? How can you and everyone who treasures freedom and liberty not be outraged that the Canadian government has placed him in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for two years? If this isn't a perfect example of what Orwell warned us about when he coined the term "thought crime," then I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I look forward to reading why Ian agrees on sending a man to jail this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 The History of the Zundel case in Canada and the United States.Please read all, if interested...... I am very proud of Canada..for taking such a stand, and opening itself to this type of criticism, to protect all of it's citizens.... http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp...d=2&item=zundel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bernice, I think you and I have had some nice exchanges in the past, so I hope you don't consider me an ogre for feeling so strongly about this subject. I don't think it's right to be imprisoning people for "thought crimes," even if those thoughts are considered deplorable by most of society. Why would you be proud of Canada for placing a non-violent man in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for two years, a man whose only "crime" is disputing the "official facts" about a portion of history? Exactly what is the Canadian government "protecting" its citizens from by doing this? I could understand the views expressed by many here, if Zundel (or any other revisionist) were expressing their support for the nazi extermination of jews. I would be as outraged as any of you if someone thought it was a good thing to exterminate a group of people, joked about it or talked about finishing the job. That's not what Zundel and his fellow revisionists are doing, however. They are claiming that there was no extermination program. I understand how that offends those who were in the camps, or their loved ones, but it shouldn't offend anybody enough to place those who hold this view in prison. Question for any of you: if some revisionists claimed that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had greatly exaggerated the suffering of those in the gulags, do you think you'd hear much of an uproar from the survivors of those gulags, or their loved ones? Would any of you support putting such a revisionist in prison for claiming that? Remember, all of us here (except for the handful of LNers) are "denying" an "official" part of history. Let's hope that in the future there isn't a push to place people like us in prison for maintaining that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 "It just shows how much power the Jews have in Canada! Welcome to Canada!"This comment illustrates the sort of thing I feared when this can of worms was opened. I think the statement is racist and most regretable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mike, I couldn't agree more. I read the posts in this thread, and tried hard to stay out of it. I was afraid of what I might say, although others might defend my right to say it. When that comment came out, I thought to myself "I knew this would happen". The door was opened. Somehow I don't think Patrick Henry had this type of thing in mind when he spoke in defense of civil liberty. If any #&%$@! wants to investigate whether or not the Holocaust did in fact happen, let them start with the films and photos, eyewitness testimony at Nuremburg, and the Wannsee Protocol. Perhaps, as in A Clockwork Orange, they should be strapped to a chair, have their eyes forced open, and be made to watch Schindler's List, or better yet, the actual films taken at the camps. Just my opinion, since I have every right to voice it. http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html http://www.ushmm.org/ If there is to be a discussion on the Education Forum, it should be held in a place other than the JFK forum, so that people who have come here for the express purpose of exchanging information about JFK won't have to see it. This thread should be moved to that location. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Richard, I think you're wrong about Voltaire and Patrick Henry; this is exactly the sort of unpopular view they were talking about. It would also be a rather extreme debating technique to strap someone down and force their eyelids open, so that they could be force-fed a Hollywood melodrama. "A Clockwork Orange" utilized this scene to portray a vulgar form of mind control. If I recall correctly, it was the bad guys who did this to Malcolm McDowell; do you really want to emulate them? And yes, I do respect your right to free speech. I just don't support the imprisonment of any human being for disagreeing with an "official" part of history. Why do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 (edited) I will read the link provided by Bernice before labeling Ian and her as extremists. This way I won't have to apologize to them! Edited February 5, 2005 by Denis Morissette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 The History of the Zundel case in Canada and the United States.Please read all, if interested...... I am very proud of Canada..for taking such a stand, and opening itself to this type of criticism, to protect all of it's citizens.... Bernice, I have read the material on the link you provided. It is typical of the way holocaust "deniers" are rebutted. There is no real refutation of the claims of revisionists; instead, almost all of the response is directed at the "denier." Zundel's character is raked over the coals, as are the publications he's ever been associated with or been defended by. The Spotlight, for instance, is called an "anti-semitic magazine." The Spotlight was a weekly newspaper, and was vigorously anti-zionist. It was amusing that they seemed to find a Mossad agent behind every tree, and blamed Israel for everything that happened all over the world. However, they published a lot of good stuff from a populist perspective. They provided a truly alternative media voice. If they were anti-semitic, then you better be ready to call Col. Fletcher Prouty and comedian Dick Gregory, as well as legendary Warren Commission critic Mark Lane, anti-semitic, too. Prouty sat on the board of directors for Liberty Lobby (publisher of the Spotlight) for years, wrote articles for the Spotlight and was interviewed many times for the radio show they sponsored. Gregory sat on the board of directors as well. Lane was Liberty Lobby's attorney and represented them in court against the likes of Jack Anderson and E. Howard Hunt. Finally, most of us admire the late Jim Garrison very much. Well, he must have been anti-semitic, too, because he also was interviewed on the radio program sponsored by the Spotlight. To his credit, director Oliver Stone refused to take the bait when he was asked to condemn Col. Prouty (whom the questioner linked to Liberty Lobby and the Spotlight) during an interview at the National Press Club in Washington, and stood strongly behind him. One other note about this article; they accuse Ingrid Rimland of "defending" Zundel. Uh, she is his wife; wouldn't that be expected? It's funny, really; there is more hatred in that article, and in every other response to "holocaust deniers" that I've ever seen, than there is anything I've ever heard a holocaust denier say or write. And again I ask; will no one on this forum other than Denis Morrisette come out against the imprisonment of someone for "denying" the "official" version of an historical event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 And again I ask; will no one on this forum other than Denis Morrisette come out against the imprisonment of someone for "denying" the "official" version of an historical event? You have my support. My own political views are diametrically opposite to those of the Nazis (past and present). However, I am totally against the idea that people should be imprisoned for holding these repulsive views. One should remember, the first people to be sent to concentration camps in Germany were those who held left-wing political opinions. Hitler was wrong to do that. So is the Canadian government. George Orwell hostility to censorship (as expressed in 1984) was based on his own experiences working for the BBC during the Second World War. His job was to broadcast information about the war to India (a country that included a large number of people who were not fully supportive of the UK in the war against Nazism). Orwell was of course aware that his broadcasts often distorted the truth. At the time he thought it was justified. Afterwards he began to reconsider this point of view. We have a similar situation today. In the UK the government have been holding Muslims in prison without charge. The government has justified this by stating they suspect they are terrorists. However, they are unable to bring them to court because they do not have enough evidence to convince a jury of this crime. So instead they keep them in prison. They are currently considering legislation that will enable the government to order British citizens to be held in detention (house arrest). This is an outrageous suggestion and is a measure that has only been used in the past by tyrannical governments. Yet there have been few complaints from the general public (although opposition politicians have began to speak up against this measure). The reason for this is that the people of the UK have been convinced by the government that we are at war. These people being detained without trial are members of the “enemy”. Therefore it does not matter how we treat them. The same thing is of course going on in the US. After the Second World War people in America were punished for holding political views that were different from that of the state (McCarthyism). People lost their jobs because they were members or former members of the American Communist Party. In some cases, these people were imprisoned for their beliefs (the Hollywood Ten). Some of these people were no longer communists or socialists. In most cases they had abandoned these beliefs as a result of the behaviour of Stalin in the 1930s. What they were punished for was the refusal to name former comrades. Like the inquisition, the authorities needed a full confession. How many people in the US complained about McCarthyism? Very few. They believed the means justified the ends. Recently a teacher in the UK was sacked because he was a member of the National Front (a neo-Nazi political party in the UK). No evidence was provided to show that these political views had been expressed in the classroom. It was just enough to show that he was a party member. Few people were willing to defend the rights of this man to hold political views that were different from that of the government. It is a very unpopular to defend the human rights of Nazis. Emotionally, I have difficulty doing this. However, if we are really living in a free and open democracy, I do believe that we have a duty to defend the rights of those who hold political opinions different to our own. In many ways Nazis are in a different category from other political groups. They have a history of carrying out appalling crimes. However, conservatives and liberals did appalling things in the 19th century. Communists did terrible things in Eastern Europe in the 20th century. Are all groups to be continually punished for crimes their predecessors have committed? As I have said I am in totally agreement with the idea of people being punished for expressing and encouraging racial or religious hatred (although I do not believe someone criticising the policies of the Israeli government is guilty of anti-Semitism). However, I do not believe people should be punished for holding deviant political opinions. After all, Jesus Christ was executed because of his deviant political views, as well as his deviant religious opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 As I have said I am in totally agreement with the idea of people being punished for expressing and encouraging racial or religious hatred I can agree with you on this but detect a slight inconsistency with this You have my support. My own political views are diametrically opposite to those of the Nazis (past and present). However, I am totally against the idea that people should be imprisoned for holding these repulsive views Unless of course you are suggesting that punishment for inciting racial hatred should fall short of imprisonment? This prompts questions like is inciting racial hatred less of a crime than say theft? Getting back to the arrival of the rather bizarre character who triggered this debate there can be little doubt that from his postings here and a cursory glance at his postings elsewhere are motivated by the desire to incite the hatred of jews. A few members have engaged him in debate reasonably effectively and happily he appears to have disappeared. In terms of moderation I have acted in exactly the same way in this matter as I did last year when the forum was infiltrated by extremist Zionists spewing forth hatred of Muslims and Germans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 As I have said I am in totally agreement with the idea of people being punished for expressing and encouraging racial or religious hatred I can agree with you on this but detect a slight inconsistency with this You have my support. My own political views are diametrically opposite to those of the Nazis (past and present). However, I am totally against the idea that people should be imprisoned for holding these repulsive views Unless of course you are suggesting that punishment for inciting racial hatred should fall short of imprisonment? This prompts questions like is inciting racial hatred less of a crime than say theft? Yes, the punishment should fit the crime. I don’t think that Holocaust deniers should be imprisoned. However, imprisonment as a punishment might be appropriate if a person’s expressed views led to physical attacks on racial minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 However, imprisonment as a punishment might be appropriate if a person’s expressed views led to physical attacks on racial minorities. This is of course very difficult to assess or prove. Is it not so that verbal and written attacks have usually been the precursors of physical attacks? The link between the two is however often confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 And again I ask; will no one on this forum other than Denis Morrisette come out against the imprisonment of someone for "denying" the "official" version of an historical event? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You have my support. My own political views are diametrically opposite to those of the Nazis (past and present). However, I am totally against the idea that people should be imprisoned for holding these repulsive views. One should remember, the first people to be sent to concentration camps in Germany were those who held left-wing political opinions. Hitler was wrong to do that. So is the Canadian government. George Orwell hostility to censorship (as expressed in 1984) was based on his own experiences working for the BBC during the Second World War. His job was to broadcast information about the war to India (a country that included a large number of people who were not fully supportive of the UK in the war against Nazism). Orwell was of course aware that his broadcasts often distorted the truth. At the time he thought it was justified. Afterwards he began to reconsider this point of view. We have a similar situation today. In the UK the government have been holding Muslims in prison without charge. The government has justified this by stating they suspect they are terrorists. However, they are unable to bring them to court because they do not have enough evidence to convince a jury of this crime. So instead they keep them in prison. They are currently considering legislation that will enable the government to order British citizens to be held in detention (house arrest). This is an outrageous suggestion and is a measure that has only been used in the past by tyrannical governments. Yet there have been few complaints from the general public (although opposition politicians have began to speak up against this measure). The reason for this is that the people of the UK have been convinced by the government that we are at war. These people being detained without trial are members of the “enemy”. Therefore it does not matter how we treat them. The same thing is of course going on in the US. After the Second World War people in America were punished for holding political views that were different from that of the state (McCarthyism). People lost their jobs because they were members or former members of the American Communist Party. In some cases, these people were imprisoned for their beliefs (the Hollywood Ten). Some of these people were no longer communists or socialists. In most cases they had abandoned these beliefs as a result of the behaviour of Stalin in the 1930s. What they were punished for was the refusal to name former comrades. Like the inquisition, the authorities needed a full confession. How many people in the US complained about McCarthyism? Very few. They believed the means justified the ends. Recently a teacher in the UK was sacked because he was a member of the National Front (a neo-Nazi political party in the UK). No evidence was provided to show that these political views had been expressed in the classroom. It was just enough to show that he was a party member. Few people were willing to defend the rights of this man to hold political views that were different from that of the government. It is a very unpopular to defend the human rights of Nazis. Emotionally, I have difficulty doing this. However, if we are really living in a free and open democracy, I do believe that we have a duty to defend the rights of those who hold political opinions different to our own. In many ways Nazis are in a different category from other political groups. They have a history of carrying out appalling crimes. However, conservatives and liberals did appalling things in the 19th century. Communists did terrible things in Eastern Europe in the 20th century. Are all groups to be continually punished for crimes their predecessors have committed? As I have said I am in totally agreement with the idea of people being punished for expressing and encouraging racial or religious hatred (although I do not believe someone criticising the policies of the Israeli government is guilty of anti-Semitism). However, I do not believe people should be punished for holding deviant political opinions. After all, Jesus Christ was executed because of his deviant political views, as well as his deviant religious opinions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, I very much appreciate your comments. I was beginning to feel a little lonely out here on the edge! The analogy you made to McCarthyism was right on; if you look at the way "holocaust deniers" are dealt with, you will find the same kind of name-calling and association by guilt. Just replace "commie," "pinko," "red" and "fellow traveler" with "holocaust denier,""anti-semite,""hater" and "neo-nazi." The situation with regards to muslims in the U.K. is certainly no better in the U.S. Look at Guantanimo Bay! But we are at "war," one with no apparent end in sight, and so everyone named Mohammed or Nasser is a potential member of Al Queda. It is a pity that George Orwell died so young. "!984" is still my favorite book of all time. While I can't say that he would have evolved into an actual "holocaust denier," his sense of justice and fair play would never have permitted him to support the imprisonment of Ernst Zundel or any other historical revisionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 The analogy you made to McCarthyism was right on; if you look at the way "holocaust deniers" are dealt with, you will find the same kind of name-calling and association by guilt. Just replace "commie," "pinko," "red" and "fellow traveler" with "holocaust denier,""anti-semite,""hater" and "neo-nazi." The situation with regards to muslims in the U.K. is certainly no better in the U.S. Look at Guantanimo Bay! But we are at "war," one with no apparent end in sight, and so everyone named Mohammed or Nasser is a potential member of Al Queda. But these are not legitimate analogies and do not stand up to rational comparison. Neo Nazis are not "identified" and dealt with in the same way as the victims of McCarthyism were. . Young Muslims banged up without charge in inhuman conditions by a repulsive Whitehouse regime have absolutely nothing in common with anti semitic historians getting into trouble with the law in Canada or elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 The analogy you made to McCarthyism was right on; if you look at the way "holocaust deniers" are dealt with, you will find the same kind of name-calling and association by guilt. Just replace "commie," "pinko," "red" and "fellow traveler" with "holocaust denier,""anti-semite,""hater" and "neo-nazi." The situation with regards to muslims in the U.K. is certainly no better in the U.S. Look at Guantanimo Bay! But we are at "war," one with no apparent end in sight, and so everyone named Mohammed or Nasser is a potential member of Al Queda. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But these are not legitimate analogies and do not stand up to rational comparison. Neo Nazis are not "identified" and dealt with in the same way as the victims of McCarthyism were. . Young Muslims banged up without charge in inhuman conditions by a repulsive Whitehouse regime have absolutely nothing in common with anti semitic historians getting into trouble with the law in Canada or elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Andy, What alleged "commie" or "pinko" was ever dealt with as harshly as Ernst Zundel has been dealt with? A Hollywood blacklist is one thing; solitary confinement is another. This doesn't minimize what many liberals went through in the 1950s, but at least most of those who were alleged to be "commies" had the sympathy of many liberals, in the entertainment industry and academia. No one appears to have any sympathy for the likes of Ernst Zundel, except his fellow historical revisionists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 John, very nicely stated and I wholeheartedly agree with every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I will read the link provided by Bernice before labeling Ian and her as extremists. This way I won't have to apologize to them! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But by posting this thoughless remark, you already have..which was exactly what you had in mind, or you never would have in the first place..IMO. .B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now