Holocaust Denial

Irrelevant. They are not.

Holocaust happened. The evidence is underestimated, if anything.

...oh well you know there were 20 less that they said ergo it never happened...

...heard it all before....and I know exactly where it leads

....well 20 million were killed here and 50 million there....what's a measly 6 million...?
 
sniffy said:
Irrelevant. They are not.
Click to expand...

They are not? Look it up. There are several people in prison RIGHT NOW for questioning aspects of the Holocaust.

Here is one:

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

Here is another:

A 38-year-old French chemical engineer was sentenced this week to one year in prison and fined 10,000 euros (14,600 dollars) for denying the Holocaust.

Vincent Reynouard was convicted by a criminal court in Salerne, eastern France, for writing a 16-page pamphlet in 2005 entitled "Holocaust? The Hidden Facts."
Click to expand...

http://www.ejpress.org/article/21586

Whats your opinion about this?
 
You're the one who claimed they are not. The OP presupposes that people actually read newspapers.

This guy at age 79, a retired teacher was sent to prison for saying controversial stuff about the Holocaust. An example of the stuff he said:

Shortly before the trial began, Amaudruz wrote an intentionally provocative article, "Vive le révisionnisme!," that appeared in the April 2000 issue (No. 418) of his Courrier newsletter. He wrote:

Revisionism exists to call into question our "certainties," even the most seemingly solid ones. This methodology, very familiar to scientists, applies to all fields of knowledge.

In several countries there is an untouchable dogma: the "Six Million" and the "gas chambers"... In Switzerland, Section 261 of the criminal code ... supposedly meant to suppress "racial discrimination," does not define the offense, thereby leaving the definition up to the judges, who can condemn or acquit the accused as they see fit, or on the basis of received instructions. And just what in the world does disputing the Six Million figure have to do with 'racial discrimination'?...

As one who has been indicted for revisionism, I repeat:

* The Six Million figure is impossible.
* I do not believe in the gas chambers, because there is no proof for them.

My trial is a political trial; the verdict is based exclusively on the appropriateness of considerations of the moment.

I prefer to obey my conscience rather than an immoral and criminal law, and I hold to my conviction. Long live revisionism!
Click to expand...
 
And where is the evidence in the OP that people are in prison for 'questioning aspects of the Holocaust?' Link to a newspaper article?

I know that there are a few people in prison for denying said Holocaust, where to do so is against the law. According to the newspapers and books that I've read on the subject.
 
sniffy said:
And where is the evidence in the OP that people are in prison for 'questioning aspects of the Holocaust?' Link to a newspaper article?

I know that there are a few people in prison for denying said Holocaust, where to do so is against the law. According to the newspapers and books that I've read on the subject.
Click to expand...

Are you for some reason unable to see the 3 links to articles in my previous postings?:confused:
I know that there are a few people in prison for denying said Holocaust, where to do so is against the law.
Click to expand...

So why did you say this?

S.A.M. said:
Do you think people should be imprisoned for questioning any aspect of the Holocaust?
Click to expand...


sniffy said:
Irrelevant. They are not
Click to expand...
 
read again a part that you missed out:

Switzerland: Prison Term for 'Holocaust Denial'
On April 10, 2000, a Swiss court sentenced 79-year-old publicist and retired teacher Gaston-Armand Amaudruz to one year in prison for "denying" the existence of homicidal gas chambers in World War II German concentration camps.

Amaudruz was found guilty of violating Switzerland's five-year-old "anti-racism" law, which makes it a crime to "deny, grossly minimize or seek to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity." He had broken the law, the court ruled, through his distribution of revisionist books, and for two articles in 1995 issues of his newsletter Courrier du Continent. In one of the offending items he had written: "For my part, I maintain my position: I don't believe in the gas chambers. Let the exterminationists provide the proof and I will believe it. But as I've been waiting for this proof for decades, I don't believe I will see it soon."

In addition to the non-suspended prison sentence, the criminal court in Lausanne ordered Amaudruz to pay a fine of 1,000 Swiss francs (about $600) to each of four civil parties in the case: the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities, the Paris-based International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), the Association of Sons and Daughters of Deported Jews of France, and a Jewish concentration camp survivor. Amaudruz must also pay the trial costs, as well as the costs of publishing a notice of the court's judgment in three daily newspapers and in an official gazette.

Jewish groups expressed satisfaction with the judgment, which Amaudruz is appealing.

The three-day trial (April 3-5) was his first appearance before a court for anything he has written or published. For half a century, Amaudruz has been putting out his Courrier newsletter with no detectable harm to the country's Jews, much less to Swiss society as a whole.
 
I did not miss it. I linked to what he had written, since he was indicted, imprisoned and fined for stuff like that. Do you think anyone who questions aspects of the Holocaust should be sent to prison?
 
S.A.M. said:
Are you for some reason unable to see the 3 links to articles in my previous postings?:confused:


So why did you say this?
Click to expand...

I didn't see the links as our posts crossed. However I am very familiar with David Irving case.

i will read them and get back to you.
 
sniffy said:
I didn't see the links as our posts crossed. However I am very familiar with David Irving case.

i will read them and get back to you.
Click to expand...

Ah, would what they wrote make a difference to your opinion? If they said No one died, it was all a conspiracy by Zionists, they should go to prison?
 
David Irving, who attended BNP rallies spreading his 'research' can speak for himself:

'I've changed'

During the one-day trial, he was questioned by the prosecutor and chief judge, and answered questions in fluent German.

He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.

"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.

COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland


Timeline: David Irving
Denying the Holocaust

The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."
Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice."

He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.
 
S.A.M. said:
Ah, would what they wrote make a difference to your opinion? If they said No one died, it was all a conspiracy by Zionists, they should go to prison?
Click to expand...

If there was a law in any given land that said to deny the holocaust was a criminal offense and then i went on to deny the holocaust I would expect to be put on trial. If however I had evidence to support my case I would expect to be acquitted.

Of course if i had genuine evidence to contradict the Holocaust I could work with the museums, researchers and scholars who are involved in maintaining the the current archives and say 'look here' it was all a ghastly mistake it never happened and here is the evidence. I might even take my evidence and use it to change the law.

What I wouldn't do is spread my nefarious, fabricated 'evidence' at rallys; to far right groups intent upon ridding the land of all those who are not white, pure blooded arians (by any means necessary) and then expect mercy at the hand of the law.

But would you SAM that is the question?
 
Of course if i had genuine evidence to contradict the Holocaust I could work with the museums, researchers and scholars who are involved in maintaining the the current archives and say 'look here' it was all a ghastly mistake it never happened and here is the evidence. I might even take my evidence and use it to change the law.
Click to expand...

In some places that would put you in prison anyway. What do you think of that? Is that right?

You realise David Irving is a British historian sentenced in Vienna?

On a visit to Austria, Irving was apprehended, tried and convicted of "glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party", which is a crime in Austria under section 3g of the Verbotsgesetz law. He served a prison sentence from February to December 2006 on the charges.
Click to expand...
 
I favour free speech. But free speech carries with it responsibilities. The conventional way of expressing this is to say that you are not free to cry out 'Fire' in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

I would not be opposed to prison sentences for individuals who made wholly unsupported claims. If they were able to introduce evidence that created an element of doubt, or that led to an interpretation of who was responsible, etc, then that would be wholly acceptable and no prison sentence, fine, or formal action of any kind should be taken. But if they are simply making it as an unsbstantiated statement then I am not wholly opposed to them being imprisoned.

By taking this position it provides the ethical opportunity to argue in favour of imprisoning creationists.
 
There are laws against Holocaust denial ?.. What the fuck ?, I though we were free to deny, at least in our own minds whatever shit we want happened.

now, If the dude went around killing people to prove holocaust denial, that I understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top