Banned Book:The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

[I Ratant]

...
You are diverting. The points (many of which you fail to substantiate and are in fact irrelevant even if true) and questions you have raised in your post to the OP do not address the real issue at hand, which is "why are these laws needed in the first place?"

.
I think those laws on Holocaust denial came about through massive guilt in the countries whose governments actively participated in the horrors.
As a penance, for "never again", knowing how unpleasantries can be disregarded if they're politically embarrassing, as those are.

 

[timhau]

Unless you're simply referring to Hollywood films, in which case I have to applaud Hollywood for at least once in history not being crass enough to capitalize on one of the worst atrocities known to man right after it happened.

Stop right there. You actually trust Mondial to give you the facts about ... well, anything? Orson Welles made The Stranger as early as 1946. Montgomery Clift started his film career in The Search (1948), which is a film about a Holocaust survivor, just like The Juggler, a 1953 film with Kirk Douglas.

 

[TSR]

"why are these laws needed in the first place?"

.
Why don't you actually *cite* the laws in question?

Free hint: most of them do not say what you apparently believe they do.
.

 

[fuelair]

Saying and doing are very different things. This was a form of expression to display my contempt for deniers of the Holocaust, I would never do this to another human being.
Unlike some.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are diverting. The points (many of which you fail to substantiate and are in fact irrelevant even if true) and questions you have raised in your post to the OP do not address the real issue at hand, which is "why are these laws needed in the first place?"

Is that the real issue at hand? I think for many of us the real issue raised in the OP was that these are worth reading and/or watching.

As for why these laws are "needed", most of us feel they aren't. As for why they exist, I think in a democracy, laws like this are an opportunity for grandstanding by politicians. Anyone who votes against them might be labelled as a Nazi sympathizer. That's why a Constitution like the one we have in the United States is so incredibly important. It gives politicians the cover they need to do the right thing. In the US, such a law simply wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

But, to a point made by a previous poster, I don't think you've accurately characterized the laws anyway. It's true that laws that restrict free speech in these areas exist in some countries, and in my opinion they do more harm than good, but for the most part they just don't matter. It is incredibly rare that anyone would get prosecuted for violating them. They are a bit like "hate speech" laws in the United States. I don't like them, either, but I wouldn't say grave injustices occur on a regular basis because of them. While accusations of hate speech law violations are routine, the actual bar required to prosecute someone for hate speech is very high, and usually has to involve a legitimate fear of real violence.

 

[Sabrina]

Stop right there. You actually trust Mondial to give you the facts about ... well, anything? Orson Welles made The Stranger as early as 1946. Montgomery Clift started his film career in The Search (1948), which is a film about a Holocaust survivor, just like The Juggler, a 1953 film with Kirk Douglas.

Never seen any of them; are they crapping all over the Holocaust or at least treating the subject with some dignity?

 

[fuelair]

Never seen any of them; are they crapping all over the Holocaust or at least treating the subject with some dignity?

Haven't seen any of them, but I suspect, given the actors involved and the background of one of them, dignity and sense of purpose.

 

[carlitos]

There were no holocaust movies in the 1940's, 50's or 60's and then circa 1974 Did Six Million Really Die? (www.zundelsite.org/harwood/didsix00.html ) was published. Then in 1976 came The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. After these two works started to gain attention the "Holocaust" mini series was first broadcast in 1978. This opened the floodgates to an avalanche of holocaust propaganda so that not a week goes by without a movie, tv show or documentary about the subject. Total overkill. The victims of Stalin vastly outnumber those of Hitler but there is no comparable amount of film or tv time for them.

Unless you're simply referring to Hollywood films, in which case I have to applaud Hollywood for at least once in history not being crass enough to capitalize on one of the worst atrocities known to man right after it happened.

Stop right there. You actually trust Mondial to give you the facts about ... well, anything? Orson Welles made The Stranger as early as 1946. Montgomery Clift started his film career in The Search (1948), which is a film about a Holocaust survivor, just like The Juggler, a 1953 film with Kirk Douglas.

Correct. There were films about the Holocaust made in every single decade since it took place. There were both narrative films, and documentary films. In dozens of countries and languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films

 

[CORed]

Butz's book serves a valuable purpose as an example of incredibly incompetent historical research, and how NOT to write history.

A history book written by an engineer is likely to be about the same quality as a transformer designed by a historian.

 

[CORed]

Just wondering, but in regards to the bolded, has any actual evidence showing the book has been banned in the listed nations been offered? Or are we just to accept the OP's claim that the book has indeed been banned in those nations?

Well, why wouldn't we take the OP's word for it, considering that everything else he's said is




......stinking bovine feces.

 

[ddt]

.
I think those laws on Holocaust denial came about through massive guilt in the countries whose governments actively participated in the horrors.
As a penance, for "never again", knowing how unpleasantries can be disregarded if they're politically embarrassing, as those are.

I can't speak about all countries. In Holland, there is no special Holocaust denial law, but it is covered by the general hate speech article. That article was instituted in the 1930s to combat the rising antisemitism.

It's not that everyone who ever denies the Holocaust is prosecuted, but people who make, so to say, a profession out of it, are - e.g., the late "black widow" Florrie Rost van Tonningen who surrounded herself with neo-nazis.

The Anne Frank foundation has some Dutch, Belgian and European jurisdiction on its site concerning Holocaust denial (link in Dutch). There are some verdicts, the most recent from 2005, by the European Court of Human Rights which have ruled that Holocaust denial is not covered by article 10 (the free speech article) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As this ends up in the usual free speech debate, let me just add that I don't feel uncomfortable with anti-hate speech legislation.

 

[Mondial]

To the ignoramuses who are trying to say The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (http://vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/) hasn't been banned you are dead wrong. This book is banned in any country that has laws against holocaust denial. You don't have to take my word for it. Simply contact the consulates of any of the countries listed. For instance, call-write-email your nearest German embassy telling them you wish to send a friend in Germany a copy of a book called The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and is it legal there as you have heard they have laws against holocaust denial. This book has been banned in Germany for decades now.

 

[Mondial]

The propaganda mantra is "we must all never forget the holocaust". Tell it to the Palestinians. They have been subjected to murder, torture and ethnic cleansing by Israelis regardless of whether they are muslim, christian or atheist. They have been targeted for death and destruction on account of their race. http://goldstonefacts.org Where are the war crimes trials for the Jews who have done this? If anyone from Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia etc committed the same war crimes and crimes against humanity they have they would be in the dock at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. Jews are hiding behind the holocaust while they rape Palestine.

 

[Mondial]

The same people who criticise Arthur Butz for not being a historian and writing The Hoax of the Twentieth Century are the same ones who say nothing about Raul Hilberg who is supposed to have written the "definitive" account of the holocaust called The Destruction of the European Jews. He wasn't a historian either but that doesn't bother people with double standards.

 

[TSR]

This book is banned in any country that has laws against holocaust denial.

.
Which does not include Germany. The German law forbids defaming the memory of the dead and was first used to prosecute a denier of the Bosnian genocide.

Not even Butz goes so far as to claim his book is banned, at least he didn't at the 1979 IHR conference.
.

 

[TSR]

The same people who criticise Arthur Butz for not being a historian and writing The Hoax of the Twentieth Century are the same ones who say nothing about Raul Hilberg who is supposed to have written the "definitive" account of the holocaust called The Destruction of the European Jews. He wasn't a historian either but that doesn't bother people with double standards.

.
Can you cite anyone here making this argument, or is this another straw man?

Butz is criticized for his execrable research and out and out lies he tries to peddle.
.

 

[Corsair 115]

To the ignoramuses who are trying to say The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (http://vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/) hasn't been banned you are dead wrong. This book is banned in any country that has laws against holocaust denial. You don't have to take my word for it. Simply contact the consulates of any of the countries listed. For instance, call-write-email your nearest German embassy telling them you wish to send a friend in Germany a copy of a book called The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and is it legal there as you have heard they have laws against holocaust denial. This book has been banned in Germany for decades now.

It's your claim that the book has been banned in various nations, so it's up to you to furnish the proof of that claim if requested. Why should I do your work for you? I see no reason why I should take your claims as true without supporting evidence.

Now, that said, I went ahead and looked into your claim that the book is banned in Canada. The Freedom to Read web site maintains a PDF file listing books and magazines that have been challenged or banned in some way (typically at the local level, i.e. a school library, and not by an act of the provincial or federal government). It lists, by decade, each book or magazine and the circumstances and outcome of its case.

The only entry I can find on the book in question is on page 26 of the PDF file. It says the following:

1980-89

Butz, Arthur. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.
1984—This book was seized from the library of the University of Calgary by RCMP officers acting under the authority of the Customs Tariff Act.
Cause of objection—Classified as “hate literature.”
Update—The book was put back on the university’s library shelves because of a technicality—Customs officers’ prohibition of the book came after the book had entered the country.
1995—A copy of the book was seized by the RCMP from a public library in Didsbury (AB). Before the librarian could respond to the seizure, the book was shredded—because the RCMP said it was prohibited.

And that's the whole extent of the book's mention by a group which dedicates itself to following such affairs (as the PDF file attests). It would seem it's not a particularly popular book, or it is resting quietly unnoticed on the shelves of other libraries.

And, indeed, my latter comment appears to be correct. Using the University of Toronto Library web site to run a search for the author, Mr. Butz, I was provided with three search results. There are currently three copies of the book in two different libraries of the University of Toronto. It may well be available in other libraries; I didn't check because no more effort was needed to refute your claim.

Conclusion: your claim that the book is banned in Canada is incorrect.

I'll leave it to the citizens of the other nations you listed to examine the book's status in their particular country.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You just advocated violently mutilating anyone who expresses a belief that you don't agree with, and you're the one calling others “deranged”?

Saying and doing are very different things. This was a form of expression to display my contempt for deniers of the Holocaust, I would never do this to another human being.
Unlike some.

Your exact words were, “Anyone who denies the Holocaust should have a Swastika carved in their ignorant faces.” If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. There is word for a person for whom “Saying and doing are very different things.” The word is “liar”.

What you said was not “a form of expression to display my contempt”; it was a statement that those who hold a particular opinion that you do not like should be subjected to a violent criminal act. You explicitly called for this act of violence and mutilation to be carried out against others for no other offense than expressing a belief. Either you meant it, in which case you are more deranged than you are accusing your potential victims of being; or else you did not mean it, in which case you are a liar.

 

[timhau]

Conclusion: your claim that the book is banned in Canada is incorrect.

You mean he lied to us (again)? Oh the humanity. If you can't trust a neo-Nazi, who can you trust?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Your exact words were, “Anyone who denies the Holocaust should have a Swastika carved in their ignorant faces.” If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. There is word for a person for whom “Saying and doing are very different things.” The word is “liar”.

What you said was not “a form of expression to display my contempt”; it was a statement that those who hold a particular opinion that you do not like should be subjected to a violent criminal act. You explicitly called for this act of violence and mutilation to be carried out against others for no other offense than expressing a belief. Either you meant it, in which case you are more deranged than you are accusing your potential victims of being; or else you did not mean it, in which case you are a liar.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate, Bob!



Deranged? Liar?

Do you always have this much trouble with hyperbole? You've never seen someone overdo it, verbally, in a moment of anger? "You make me so mad, I could strangle you".... What parent or loved one hasn't said that, I ask you?