German Holocaust Denier gets 5 Years

[Nick Terry]

There are at least three broad legal red lines which Holocaust denial can cross and has crossed:

• libel, slander and defaming the memory of the dead
• false news and false advertising
• incitement to racial hatred

All are areas of 'free speech' which have been historically restricted by many countries for different reasons, with different standards, and in different court contexts: civil and criminal. These are not 'thoughtcrimes', they are crimes and offenses where a specific speech-act has been made that is deemed to be socially harmful.

Throw in the major, major differences between continental law and Anglo-Saxon common law traditions, and you have a recipe for confusion.

 

[Nick Terry]

I find it incredible that people who claim to be skeptics/freethinkers/atheists will suspend their critical faculties when it comes to holocaust survivors and the holocaust story in general.

Oh, the you're-not-sceptical gambit. How about you tell us the 100 books written in non-English languages you have read on this subject, or the archives you've visited to investigate this piece of history.

You should also be aware that people's understanding of the Holocaust is based on history which is primarily derived from documents.

There is a word for lying under oath in a court of law. It is called PERJURY. Holocaust survivors are not just accusing people of murder but mass murder by the million.

Yep, along with many Germans, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, French, Dutch, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Hungarians, Norwegians, Danes, Italians as well as some from America, Britain and the Commonwealth.

You're a gimp if you think it's just Jewish eyewitnesses who confirm this story.

If they are frightened of being vigorously cross examined they shouldn't testify in the first place.

Then how do you explain the routine presence of death-camp survivors at death-camp trials since 1945? Evidently they're made of tougher stuff than your stupid prejudices will allow.

Take the "Ivan the Terrible" case in Israel. Holocaust survivors under oath claimed John Demjanjuk was this man but it was a deliberate frame up and he was acquitted. What about their perjured testimony? None of them were charged.

A 1987 case more than 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!

At the first Zundel trial in 1985 an "eyewitness" called Arnold Friedman testified-that the colour of flames coming from the chimneys determined who was being cremated-blue flames were Hungarian jews and green flames meant Polish jews. Can anyone honestly take such garbage seriously?

A 1985 case a full 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!

Elie Wiesel is a professional survivor who tours the lecture circuit but he is another fraud. www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml He claims that at the site of a mass grave of jews (Babi Yar) blood spurted out of the ground in geysers for months afterwards!

Actually, so did Eichmann claim this.

Anyway, the ground hydrology of decomposing mass graves is a subject which the UK got an object lesson in when we culled our cattle herds during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 2000:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thats-why-it-is-denial-not-revisionism_10.html

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

[...]

It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.

"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."​

That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/04/28/nfnm328.xml

Just goes to show that arguments to incredulity often run smack into that little ol' something called reality and the natural world.

There is one survivor that the establishment media is not interested in however. His name is Alexander McClelland. He joined the Australian army in 1939, fought in Crete and was captured. Because of several escape attempts he was imprisoned at the Terezin concentation camp (Theresienstadt). He says there were no gas chambers there and agrees with revisionists like Zundel who say there was no attempt to exterminate the jews of Europe. His website is www.aijf.org/2005_update.html He has written a book about his experiences THE ANSWER-JUSTICE but the usual great promoters of "tolerance" and "understanding" don't want the media to report on it as it interferes with their propaganda image of the holocaust. An Australian war veteran who fought the nazis who doesn't believe in the holocaust! The zionist McCarthyists and their chorus of smear merchants have a hard time making the usual claims of nazi, fascist, Hitlerite etc stick when it comes to this man.

Guess what, there were indeed no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. So please go tilt your windmills somewhere else.

This essay CHEMISTRY OF THE HOLOCAUST was written in 1978 and was my first intro to holocaust skepticism-"It has escaped the notice of most people that stories of a "Nazi Holocaust" during World War II are actually impossible as regards the chemistry of poisons"-Read on [URL="http://www.cwporter.com/c1.htm"]www.cwporter.com/c1.htm[/URL]

All these idiotic claims have been debunked by PhD-qualified chemists.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/

Now, once again, please go flush your head down the toilet. You're not wanted here.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Thanks, Nick...

Oh, the you're-not-sceptical gambit. How about you tell us the 100 books written in non-English languages you have read on this subject, or the archives you've visited to investigate this piece of history.

You should also be aware that people's understanding of the Holocaust is based on history which is primarily derived from documents.



Yep, along with many Germans, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, French, Dutch, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Hungarians, Norwegians, Danes, Italians as well as some from America, Britain and the Commonwealth.

You're a gimp if you think it's just Jewish eyewitnesses who confirm this story.



Then how do you explain the routine presence of death-camp survivors at death-camp trials since 1945? Evidently they're made of tougher stuff than your stupid prejudices will allow.



A 1987 case more than 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!



A 1985 case a full 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!



Actually, so did Eichmann claim this.

Anyway, the ground hydrology of decomposing mass graves is a subject which the UK got an object lesson in when we culled our cattle herds during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 2000:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thats-why-it-is-denial-not-revisionism_10.html

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

[...]

It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.

"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."​

That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/04/28/nfnm328.xml

Just goes to show that arguments to incredulity often run smack into that little ol' something called reality and the natural world.



Guess what, there were indeed no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. So please go tilt your windmills somewhere else.



All these idiotic claims have been debunked by PhD-qualified chemists.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/

Now, once again, please go flush your head down the toilet. You're not wanted here.

I started writing an answer to this fella yesterday, but I was too angry to properly phrase it and too tired to research it, so I'm very pleased you beat me to the punch.

Now, Mondial, how about answering my questions asked earlier?

 

[gumboot]

You only have the right to those beliefs up until the moment you act, or incite others to act, illegally. There can never be any excuse for those who seek to incite religious or racial hatred. I have absolutely no problem at all with European laws in this respect.

If he's inciting others to rob banks, or kill Jews, or whatever, fine.

But if all he's doing is inciting others to HATE Jews, he should be left alone. Being racist in thought (not in action) should not be illegal. If you make it illegal to "be racist" you're essentially banning certain thoughts or ideas. Bad idea.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

There are at least three broad legal red lines which Holocaust denial can cross and has crossed:

• libel, slander and defaming the memory of the dead
• false news and false advertising
• incitement to racial hatred

All are areas of 'free speech' which have been historically restricted by many countries for different reasons, with different standards, and in different court contexts: civil and criminal. These are not 'thoughtcrimes', they are crimes and offenses where a specific speech-act has been made that is deemed to be socially harmful.

Thanks, I understand all this. Some key factors:

1) You cannot defame, slander, or libel the dead. They are not protected by these laws.

2) False advertising, fine, but false news? News agencies report false news that they know is false all the time. I don't think printing knowingly false news should be a criminal act. (A fine, sure, but not prison).

3) This is the one I totally disagree with. The government here tried to raise a "hate-speech" bill in Parliament and it was universally slammed. I'm well aware that Germany has these sorts of laws, and that this guy was sentenced in accordance with German law. I'm just saying I believe the laws are totally wrong, and in violation of the principles of free society.

If you incite a whole bunch of people and they all become racist scum, so what. They should be allowed to be racist scum. If some of them then go off and kill a Jew or something, those individuals should be charged with murder.

Of course if the guy is going "we should kill all the Jews" that's a whole different thing. But that's a murder-related charge, not racial hatred.

-Gumboot

 

[Architect]

Nope. Disagree. Incitement to commit an offence is in itself an offence.

 

[gumboot]

Nope. Disagree. Incitement to commit an offence is in itself an offence.

You're completely missing the point. I totally agree with you. I am saying in a genuine free society "racial hatred" should not be an offence. Therefore "inciting racial hatred" couldn't be an offence.

-Gumboot

 

[Nick Terry]

Thanks, I understand all this. Some key factors:

1) You cannot defame, slander, or libel the dead. They are not protected by these laws.

But that's why Germany has a law against defaming the memory of the dead.

2) False advertising, fine, but false news? News agencies report false news that they know is false all the time. I don't think printing knowingly false news should be a criminal act. (A fine, sure, but not prison).

'False news' is the name of the Canadian provision used five times before it was used to try Zuendel twice, before being struck down as unconstitutional.

I appreciate the spirit behind this line of attack but fear it could easily be abused. The very rarity with which the statute was applied in Canada shows that courts erred on the side of caution.

3) This is the one I totally disagree with. The government here tried to raise a "hate-speech" bill in Parliament and it was universally slammed. I'm well aware that Germany has these sorts of laws, and that this guy was sentenced in accordance with German law. I'm just saying I believe the laws are totally wrong, and in violation of the principles of free society.

As with (1) and (3) I am simply pointing out where the lines are which converge on the concept of making Holocaust denial illegal.

If you incite a whole bunch of people and they all become racist scum, so what. They should be allowed to be racist scum. If some of them then go off and kill a Jew or something, those individuals should be charged with murder.

Of course if the guy is going "we should kill all the Jews" that's a whole different thing. But that's a murder-related charge, not racial hatred.

The British law against incitement to racial hatred sets the bar where I'd like it. Nick Griffin of the BNP was unsuccessfully prosecuted for inciting hatred against Muslims. He was acquitted. David Irving was never prosecuted for a similar offense in the UK. But there have been successful prosecutions, including of Muslim preachers inciting terrorist acts. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Yes, it could be abused in a certain climate, but I think if ever British or American society ends up in that climate, then we'll be living an Alex Jones fantasy.

 

[gumboot]

As with (1) and (3) I am simply pointing out where the lines are which converge on the concept of making Holocaust denial illegal.

Understood. I'm not denying Germany's laws. I'm just expression the opinion that they don't follow the ideology of "free society".

The British law against incitement to racial hatred sets the bar where I'd like it... But there have been successful prosecutions, including of Muslim preachers inciting terrorist acts.

Ah, but see there's no need for this new law. A terrorist act was ALREADY illegal. Therefore inciting terrorist acts was already illegal. It doesn't have to involve "racial hatred".

"I say to you, followers, that you should strap explosives on your bodies and blow up the trains".

Is that "racial hatred"? No, of course not. Nothing about race or hatred there. But it's inciting acts of terrorism. So illegal.

But what about:

"The non-Muslim is sub-human, do not respect him"

Is that inciting racial hatred? Sure is. Should it be illegal? I say no. In big letters.

What's the point here. These sorts of laws are easily abused. The Nazis started by establishing laws like this. They sounded reasonable, at first.

My philosophy is "our society values equality and freedom strongly enough that we can withstand the odd person inciting racism. Society itself will reject their values".

-Gumboot

 

[tsig]

The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

Well I don't like it.

I think it might violate the rules.

 

[sackett]

...All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs....

It's even worse than that. This ugly Nazoid loon IS a martyr to free speech.

Yes, nauseating as the idea may be, you have to stand up for this ****sucker if you believe in freedom of speech.

Pardon me while I go call Ralph. But it's true.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Sadly, it is true...

It's even worse than that. This ugly Nazoid loon IS a martyr to free speech.

Yes, nauseating as the idea may be, you have to stand up for this ****sucker if you believe in freedom of speech.

Pardon me while I go call Ralph. But it's true.

They are unlikely and lousy martyrs for free speech, but outlawing them does make them martyrs.

However, as noted earlier, it's important that these days their prime argument seems to be no longer the validity of the Holocaust, but their status as free speech martyrs...which means at some levels, they're admitting that they're full of garbage, but still demanding their right to spout it.

That also is an admission that their purpose is not to dispute the events of the Holocaust, but to rehabilitate their neo-Nazi politics and Herr Hitler.

What I would find interesting is whether or not these guys, were they to take power in a Western nation, would outlaw teaching of materials that said the Holocaust was a tragedy, or anything benign about Jews. My guess is they would not, which would merely add to their hypocrisy.