Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

British historian David Irving was sentenced in Austria to three years in prison after pleading guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust, saying he erred in contending there were no Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War.

Irving could have received a 10-year prison term. Under Austrian law, it is a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/02/20/irving-holocaust060220.html

Some things still just can't be justified, thats the nice thing about European law!

There'S nothing nice about this. It is sad actually. Certainly the Historian is wrong, but I think he has the right to deny it if he wants, he shouldn't be imprisoned. Oh and Whirly, everything is justifiable.

I think its bullshit, sure the holocaust was real and denying it sucks and all, but people should be allowed to do it. No matter what it implies, freedom of speech and all. As long as the guy isn't trying to cause a new holocaust he really wasn't doing anything wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There'S nothing nice about this. It is sad actually. Certainly the Historian is wrong, but I think he has the right to deny it if he wants, he shouldn't be imprisoned. Oh and Whirly, everything is justifiable.

Not in Austria, Where are you from Marius? I think three years is a little strong though, however it just shows the pain many still feel over these events, including the Austrian nation.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not in Austria, Where are you from Marius? I think three years is a little strong though, however it just shows the pain many still feel over these events, including the Austrian nation.

Even in Austria, that is not a Law thing, everything as a fact is justifiable.

Well I won't deny there is pain and that is justified as well, but Freedom of Speech should be more important especially as the Historian didn't harm anybody.

My recollection on the event is a little hazy - did he actually make these comments while in Austria?

And what other places have laws like this? Does Israel, for example, or Germany itself? Or Poland? Or many others? Nations and people who suffered just as much, if not more, then Austria?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
My recollection on the event is a little hazy - did he actually make these comments while in Austria?

And what other places have laws like this? Does Israel, for example, or Germany itself? Or Poland? Or many others? Nations and people who suffered just as much, if not more, then Austria?

He made the comments in a book tour of Austria

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even in Austria, that is not a Law thing

Yes it is he just got 3 years, you're Austrian right?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
My recollection on the event is a little hazy - did he actually make these comments while in Austria?

And what other places have laws like this? Does Israel, for example, or Germany itself? Or Poland? Or many others? Nations and people who suffered just as much, if not more, then Austria?

I can't even tell you. It might be a crime here too though.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
He made the comments in a book tour of Austria



Yes it is he just got 3 years, you're Austrian right?

I didn't say that one doesn't get punished for it in Austria, I said it is justifiable, I can prove it you, meet me in Vienna in an hour I will justify the Holocaust.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't say that one doesn't get punished for it in Austria, I said it is justifiable, I can prove it you, meet me in Vienna in an hour I will justify the Holocaust.

I would not want to see you get 3 years added to which I am at work!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I would not want to see you get 3 years added to which I am at work!

Yeah, that would suck, so lets not Justify it for now.
And what the hell are you doing on KMC at work?

Originally posted by Bardock42
There'S nothing nice about this. It is sad actually. Certainly the Historian is wrong, but I think he has the right to deny it if he wants, he shouldn't be imprisoned. Oh and Whirly, everything is justifiable.
I agree.

In Germany, you can go to prison for up to 3 years for mass-producing Hitler's picture or displaying a single likeness in a way that glorifies him, or for denying the Holocaust.

My opinion? The importance of free speech balances on a fragile line with social harmony. Ultimately, I'd rather err on the side of freedom.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, that would suck, so lets not Justify it for now.
And what the hell are you doing on KMC at work?

I'm marking some extremely poor papers on Gas Chromatography and I am bored!! Nice thing about the kind of marking I do, I don't have to worry to much about spellings, just the practical, background and conclusion etc.

Is there any reason inparticual that hes denying the Holocaust happened? Is there any way his words were twisted or taken out of context? (not trying to defend the guy, just want to know if hes got a reason for saying this or if he is just really, really stupid....)

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Is there any reason inparticual that hes denying the Holocaust happened? Is there any way his words were twisted or taken out of context? (not trying to defend the guy, just want to know if hes got a reason for saying this or if he is just really, really stupid....)

Nope and justification of the Holocaust is also illegal in many countries in Europe including Austria and Germany.

Wonder why he said something so idiotic then... Possibly trying to get publicity with all the white supremacists out there??

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Wonder why he said something so idiotic then... Possibly trying to get publicity with all the white supremacists out there??

probably. This was my original point which some people misunderstood, to many hate crimes cannot be justified and in many countries to a point our own included it's law. Race relations law has been used recently against BNP members for a similar purpose.

f*** him.

you're next mel gibson

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And what other places have laws like this? Does Israel, for example, or Germany itself? Or Poland? Or many others? Nations and people who suffered just as much, if not more, then Austria?
Holocaust denial is illegal in Belgium (Negationism Law). The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines.

Mel gibson??? Thou I'm not a fan, whats he done???


Why is denial of the holocaust such a crime??? Though it takes a huge amount of idiocy to do so, people are still free to deny that 1+1 equals 2 and people can deny that we have been to the moon... (even though alot of astronaughts died trying) Is this a little harsh?? Hes just an idiot... Should we not treat all idiots the same??? lock up all those who say something stupid??

Originally posted by Storm
Holocaust denial is illegal in Belgium (Negationism Law). The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines.

Does that also include attempting to justify it Storm like in Austria?

"what women want"......thats about enough for 3-4 years in prison

Europe has always been oddly strict on this. UK and US alike take a different tack- that if you want to make an idiot of yourself denying the Holocaust, then do so. Locking people up for it hardly solves any problems and only aggravates those who see a conspiracy behind it.

David Irving is a very famous historian and big expert on the Nazi period- it was he who was the main voice in discrediting the Hitler diaries, for example.

His view on the Holocaust have been well known- he is not in agremeent that it happened. It is worth noting, though, that that's a hazy thing to say; he's not denying Germans killed Jews in large numbers, what he questions is the extent to which gas chambers were used to make it systematic. He is certain that far less died than is commonly said, and those that did die died mostly of old-fashioned murder and malnutrition; he thinks the gas chambers were only used in a limited sense and it is the systematic elimination he has denied.

Which is controversial and probably silly but not heinous. A few years ago, he tried to sue an American academic for attacking his views; he lost the case and at this time it was specifically pointed out that his views were not illegal in US or UK. His case was not helped because behind the veneer of the respectable historian trying to advance a radical view, the case revealed that he does actually have rather nasty facist/racist tendencies- clearly not illegal, but it didn't help his reputation at all.

However, this charge in Austria relates to a tour he made some fifteen years ago, at a time when his views were more extreme- he didn't think gas chambers were used at all back then. He contends his views have changed since then as the evidence has, from outirght denial to the view I outlined above. This in mind... he really wasn't expecting a jail sentence like this for it, so much later.

He pleaded guilty, btw. He said that it was an absurd law but as it is written he did indeed break it. He really didn't think he'd get jail time.

It does look silly.

thanks for clearing that up for me ush!
and finti - - that was priceless!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Europe has always been oddly strict on this. UK and US alike take a different tack- that if you want to make an idiot of yourself denying the Holocaust, then do so. Locking people up for it hardly solves any problems and only aggravates those who see a conspiracy behind it.

David Irving is a very famous historian and big expert on the Nazi period- it was he who was the main voice in discrditing the Hiter diaries, for example.

His view on the Holocaust have been well known- he is not in agremeent that it happened. It is worth noting, though, that that's a hazy thing to say; he's not denying Germans killed Jews in large numbers, what he questions is the extent to which gas chambers were used to make it systematic. he is certain that far less died than is commonly said, and those that did die died mostly of old-fashioned murderand malnutrition; he thinks the gas chambers were only used in a limited sense and it is the systematic elimination he has denied.

Which is controversial and probably silly but not heinous. A few years ago, he tried to sue an American academic for attacking his views; he lost the case and at this tiome it was specifically pointed out that his views were not illegal in US or UK. His case was not helped because behind the veneer of the respectable historian trying to advance a radical view, the case revealed that he does actually have rather nasty facist/racist tendencies- clearly not illegal, but it didn't help his reputation at all.

However, this charge in Austria relates to a tour he made some fifteen years ago, at a time when his views were more extreme- he dodn't think gas chambers were used at all back then. He contends his views have changed since then as the evidence has, from outirght denial to the view I outlined above. This in mind... he really wasn't expecting a jail sentence like this for it, so much later.

He pleaded guilty, btw. He said that it wa a n absurd law but as it is written he did indeed break it. He really didn't think he'd get jail time.

It does look silly.

Question how can he be found guilty for a law which came in 14 years ago for something he said 20 years ago Ush? I was under the impression he had repeated himself on a book signing much more recently. The news story quotes 89 also as the time he said it. Weird stuff.

and by saying Europe here USH doesnt include the Scandinavian countries as we have the same tack on it as UK and USA

IMO, freedom of speech should prevail, if for no other reason that it allows one to "...keep yer enemies closer."

I said 'some two decades' ago at first, which was hazy before I looked it up to remind myself. The actual points the case refers to were made in 1989, about 16.5 years ago.

The warrant for his arrest dates from 1989; they tried him on subsequent law. Yes, that's a bit dodgy.

Are the Austria jails running low or something??? Perhaps we can send some of our over crowded criminals over there!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The warrant for his arrest dates from 1989; they tried him on subsequent law. Yes, that's a bit dodgy.

A bit dodgy, more than I woulds say.

Just goes to show though how strong some peoples feelings are on this issue.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Are the Austria jails running low or something??? Perhaps we can send some of our over crowded criminals over there!

Most of our criminals should not be in Prison. Draconian custodial sentences are just making things worse, another error we are copying from the US.

The logic that says he could be tried on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.

The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.

He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.

Now, that seems all very good and logical and is the logic being applied here, but I think many would say that the pracitcality of this situation makes that direct allegory absurd; it's a bit much to retroactively take comments he made in an academic tour for which no-one thought were ever going to be of any consequence, and make them more illegal.


It's worth noting, btw, that Irving wasn't caught after some vast 15 year manhunt. He went back to Austria last November to give a lecture tour, at which point they promptly arrested him under that old warrant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The logic that says he could be tired on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.

The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.

He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.

Now, that seems all very good and logical and is the logic being applied here, but I think many would say that the pracitcality of this situation makes that direct allegory absurd; it's a bit much to retroactively take comments he made in an academic tour for which no-one thought were ever going to be of any consequence, and make them more illegal.


It's worth noting, btw, that Irving wasn't caught after some vast 15 year manhunt. He went back to Austria last November to give a lecture tour, at which point they promptly arrested him under that old warrant.

I knew pretty much all that, however, the concept that a law could be introduced outlawing something you have said in the past tmz, and you could be found guilty under it. Is despite being sound, pretty silly in my opinion.

i really dont understand how you can justify giving someone jail time for this... if he participated in the holocaust then yea, inprison him, but not for denying or justifying it... however wrong he is, he shouldnt be inprisoned.

Originally posted by Df02
i really dont understand how you can justify giving someone jail time for this... if he participated in the holocaust then yea, inprison him, but not for denying or justifying it... however wrong he is, he shouldnt be inprisoned.

WEll the Austrians along with many other nations would disagree.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
WEll the Austrians along with many other nations would disagree.

You speak for THE Austrians lately?

Jailed for an opinion of 17 years.
free europe? what a joke

Originally posted by Bardock42
You speak for THE Austrians lately?

Nope the laws they have recently brought in and convicted a British historian under do that nicely my Austrian friend.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope the laws they have recently brought in and convicted a British historian under do that nicely my Austrian friend.

Oh I see, so every Law in Britain speaks for you....I see.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I see, so every Law in Britain speaks for you....I see.

It speaks for the "British People" as thats the concept behind division of state and the legal system.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It speaks for the "British People" as thats the concept behind division of state and the legal system.

I think you need to realize that there is a difference between the Laws of a country and the actual people from a country. I guess you are a conformist and everything your government says you agree with, nothing wrong with that, just not appliable to everyone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you need to realize that there is a difference between the Laws of a country and the actual people from a country. I guess you are a conformist and everything your government says you agree with, nothing wrong with that, just not appliable to everyone. I may not agree with all the laws, but I agree with the principles benind most of them, I would actually like to see a similar law to this Austrian one in the UK! Although with slightly less harsh punishment and enforcement. Although it could be argued thats the Austrian mentality "Show no mercy".

well the western wold are so f*ucking proud of these freedom of speech and press thingie, well Irvin are entitled to his opinion if he wants to make an ass of himself so...........but put him in jail for stating his opinion on the matter too far fetched.

Originally posted by finti
well the western wold are so f*ucking proud of these freedom of speech and press thingie, well Irvin are entitled to his opinion if he wants to make an ass of himself so...........but put him in jail for stating his opinion on the matter too far fetched. On not proud of Freedom of speech when it is used by the wicked to deny and justify evil acts, "lest we forget".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I would actually like to see a similar law to this Austrian one in the UK!

Well but the Brits don't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well but the Brits don't.

We may have to when Europe becomes a "federal" state. That reminds me of something

Wouldn't it come under the recent hate-crime legislation law whirly??? I'm not completely sure thou....

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Wouldn't it come under the recent hate-crime legislation law whirly??? I'm not completely sure thou....

It might well do Good thinking H and M, I am not sure though either, it will be interesting to see. I know many travellers are interested!

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Mel gibson??? Thou I'm not a fan, whats he done???

My buddy Mel????....
What did he do?

stil he is entitled to his opinion, he just need to back them up by proving them.

And even if he can't prove it he should still be able to say it. What would have happened if we would people in jail for saying the government made a mistake. Perhaps they are wrong and lying and spraeding hatred. Or perhaps they are right but they will never get the chance to prove it because they are in jail. Sure thats way worse then whats happening here, but somebody has been thrown in jail for having an opinion. Not for acting on it, not for making other people act on it, no he just had an opinion and he's in jail because of that. Thats just insane.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/061810.htm

some reading material on our pal mel.

The Iranian president claim the same thing so what to do

Does his dad know Deano?

Gibson, whose father, Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier and who claims the the World Trade Center was destroyed by remote control and not by al Queda; that the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by the Jews and that all popes going back to John XXIII have been illegitimate "anti-popes". I see "Grand Moff Gav" lurking his opinion should be interesting.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
British historian David Irving was sentenced in Austria to three years in prison after pleading guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust, saying he erred in contending there were no Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War.

Irving could have received a 10-year prison term. Under Austrian law, it is a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/02/20/irving-holocaust060220.html

Some things still just can't be justified, thats the nice thing about European law!

This is a sad day for both the historical world and political freedoms...

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
British historian David Irving was sentenced in Austria to three years in prison after pleading guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust, saying he erred in contending there were no Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War.

Irving could have received a 10-year prison term. Under Austrian law, it is a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/02/20/irving-holocaust060220.html

Some things still just can't be justified, thats the nice thing about European law!

This is a sad day for both the historical world and political freedoms...

Originally posted by PVS
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/061810.htm

some reading material on our pal mel. .......But he was my buddy......bad bad Mel.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
This is a sad day for both the historical world and political freedoms...

Interestingly Hit and Miss raised an interesting point that our new hate crimes laws might be applicable in a similar way!!! How cool is that!!!! Double post from Gav, edit one to a smiley pal!

he's a wacked out jew-hating scumbag....starred in some really decent films back in the day...but alas that changes nothing

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Interestingly Hit and Miss raised an interesting point that our new hate crimes laws might be applicable in a similar way!!! How cool is that!!!! Double post from Gav, edit one to a smiley pal!

Not cool, you shouldn't be happy with people limiting freedom of speech in any way shape or form.

Originally posted by PVS
he's a wacked out jew-hating scumbag....starred in some really decent films back in the day...but alas that changes nothing

Agreed!

Originally posted by debbiejo
.......But he was my buddy......bad bad Mel.
You are not so shallow to judge him on something his father says are you Bebbie?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Interestingly Hit and Miss raised an interesting point that our new hate crimes laws might be applicable in a similar way!!! How cool is that!!!! Double post from Gav, edit one to a smiley pal!

Smilies are stupid....anyone who does that should get a few decent hits to the head.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," David Irving

That's okay, we all make mistakes. But wait minute...

"Before entering the courtroom, Irving told reporters he now believes the Nazis slaughtered Jews during the war."

A great historian and it took him that long to learn that? WOW!

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not so shallow to judge him on something his father says are you Bebbie?

. Oh not you too with the Bebbie thingie..
No, he's still in my profile as my buddy..

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," David Irving

That's okay, we all make mistakes. But wait minute...

"Before entering the courtroom, Irving told reporters he now believes the Nazis slaughtered Jews during the war."

A great historian and it took him that long to learn that? WOW!

Well he could have had his reasons to doubt the official accounts or doubt if it really happened in the way that others said it did, of course he's wrong but well people are allowed to make mistakes and be idiots. Don't really see how thats relevant to the topic however. Even if he didn't ever find out he still shouldn't have been thrown in jail.

Why did that ese even deny it in the first place? What was he trying to accomplish?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why did that ese even deny it in the first place? What was he trying to accomplish?

He probably wanted to bring out the truth, or what he believed was the truth. But what does that have to do with anything? The guy was wrong and an idiot but locking up people who have idiotic opinions isn't really a good thing.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why did that ese even deny it in the first place? What was he trying to accomplish?

I think what hes denying isn't that it happened as to the amount of people it happened too, I think he believes alot less people were killed then the figures that were given...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I think what hes denying isn't that it happened as to the amount of people it happened too, I think he believes alot less people were killed then the figures that were given...


Nope Sophisticated liars about this subject come up with the kind of excuses he gave!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope Sophisticated liars about this subject come up with the kind of excuses he gave!

Actually I think that's not just excuses that's a theory a few historians agree with.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Europe has always been oddly strict on this. UK and US alike take a different tack- that if you want to make an idiot of yourself denying the Holocaust, then do so. Locking people up for it hardly solves any problems and only aggravates those who see a conspiracy behind it.

David Irving is a very famous historian and big expert on the Nazi period- it was he who was the main voice in discrediting the Hitler diaries, for example.

His view on the Holocaust have been well known- he is not in agremeent that it happened. It is worth noting, though, that that's a hazy thing to say; he's not denying Germans killed Jews in large numbers, what he questions is the extent to which gas chambers were used to make it systematic. He is certain that far less died than is commonly said, and those that did die died mostly of old-fashioned murder and malnutrition; he thinks the gas chambers were only used in a limited sense and it is the systematic elimination he has denied.

Which is controversial and probably silly but not heinous. A few years ago, he tried to sue an American academic for attacking his views; he lost the case and at this time it was specifically pointed out that his views were not illegal in US or UK. His case was not helped because behind the veneer of the respectable historian trying to advance a radical view, the case revealed that he does actually have rather nasty facist/racist tendencies- clearly not illegal, but it didn't help his reputation at all.

However, this charge in Austria relates to a tour he made some fifteen years ago, at a time when his views were more extreme- he didn't think gas chambers were used at all back then. He contends his views have changed since then as the evidence has, from outirght denial to the view I outlined above. This in mind... he really wasn't expecting a jail sentence like this for it, so much later.

He pleaded guilty, btw. He said that it was an absurd law but as it is written he did indeed break it. He really didn't think he'd get jail time.

It does look silly.

This really thrusts my point across of the "government" being the "superme authourity" in a "secular" society...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually I think that's not just excuses that's a theory a few historians agree with.

I see........

The agenda of these historians is extremely questionable....... Read Ushs post on the subject.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I see........

The agenda of these historians is extremely questionable....... Read Ushs post on the subject.

Well yes, still it's ot just an excuse, that was my point, not that they actually have a point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well yes, still it's ot just an excuse, that was my point, not that they actually have a point.

It's called a "false history" my friend and yes as such it's an excuse which is why your country has legislated against it, because it's a lie.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It's called a "false history" my friend and yes as such it's an excuse which is why your country has legislated against it, because it's a lie.

How can you be sure? I mean there seem to be evidence supporting their arguements.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How can you be sure? I mean there seem to be evidence supporting their arguements.

Not really

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not really

Why are you so sure?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are you so sure?

Because I've met people who were there. I've seen pictures of what happed and posted them here on this site. No matter how horrible it is. It happened. There was a "final solution".

Originally posted by Bardock42
There'S nothing nice about this. It is sad actually. Certainly the Historian is wrong, but I think he has the right to deny it if he wants, he shouldn't be imprisoned.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Because I've met people who were there. I've seen pictures of what happed and posted them here on this site. No matter how horrible it is. It happened. There was a "final solution".

Nobody is denying that...but if it involved as many people as usually claimed is the question.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This really thrusts my point across of the "government" being the "superme authourity" in a "secular" society...

Only in the sense of legal authority, which is hardly the whole of the matter.

Ridiculous, truly stupid.

Unless there is a threat of unwanted harm to a person or possibly property, there should be no limits on free speech. It's not justifiable in any way. Denial of something, no matter what, isn't grounds for a jail sentence.

It's almost too silly to discuss.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The logic that says he could be tried on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.

The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.

He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I knew pretty much all that, however, the concept that a law could be introduced outlawing something you have said in the past tmz, and you could be found guilty under it. Is despite being sound, pretty silly in my opinion.

It's not really sound; that shouldn't happen legally. The precept has been enshrined in the Human Rights Act, Article 7:

NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Ridiculous, truly stupid.

Unless there is a threat of unwanted harm to a person or possibly property, there should be no limits on free speech. It's not justifiable in any way. Denial of something, no matter what, isn't grounds for a jail sentence.

It's almost too silly to discuss.

Agreed. It's very ridiculous. Not much else can be said.

I think, that if this man wants to say it didn't happen, he should provide some proof to back up his claim.

Originally posted by Makedde
I think, that if this man wants to say it didn't happen, he should provide some proof to back up his claim.

But should he have been thrown in jail even if he couldn't prove the numbers were false? Does this guy deserve jail time according to you?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not really sound; that shouldn't happen legally. The precept has been enshrined in the Human Rights Act, Article 7:

NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.



I think you'll find the fact that it happens legally all the time makes it legally sound. There is no question that this move was illegal.

Besides which, the second part of that article means that discretion can make it virtually irrelevant, even if Austria had enshrined something like that in law, which I am not really sure it has. Even in the UK, which has, Parliament has the option to make law retroactive if it wishes.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Only in the sense of legal authority, which is hardly the whole of the matter.

True, however, that's assuming that an individual has the power to challenge the governments "moral" authority. In this case, the individual clearly did not.

I can see this type of stuff happening frequently within a completely naturalistic government. It's definitely a scary thought, sadly I believe many modern countries are moving towards this end.

its just like the police chief in england who questioned the media attention surrounding the killing of 2 little girls... claiming that they were biased to the cases they reported as killing 2 little white girls is worse then killing others... Although he had a point, the case he was addressing was a sensitive one... And thus, he had to apologise...

Same here whob, even if he was in the right had he should have the right to claim what ever he wants the holocaust is a sensitive subject, and without provoking too many people he probably thought it was better to hush up then try to make some sort of moral speech, to which people would shrug it off with the claim he was a nazi supporter...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Denial of something, no matter what, isn't grounds for a jail sentence.



It is about the holocaust in a number of European Countrie, sorry you're wrong VVD.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It is about the holocaust in a number of European Countrie, sorry you're wrong VVD.

It shouldn't be though

Originally posted by Fishy
It shouldn't be though

hmmmmmmm, many in those countries seem to disagree

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmmmmmmm, many in those countries seem to disagree

Many in those country's are stupid... Well sort of.

Western nations are very much for freedom of speech at least they claim to be, but then when there views are challenged they throw people in jail for it? I don't car how terrible what he said is, it was still an opinion and last time I checked people were allowed to have those, as long as they don't act upon it they aren't doing anything wrong.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmmmmmmm, many in those countries seem to disagree


hmmmmmmmmm, doesn't change that it shouldn't

In Belgium you can even get arrested for doing the Nazi salute.

And that already is more offensive then saying the holocaust didn't happen. Its an action not an opinion and get arrested for it? Thats a bit over the top if you ask me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
hmmmmmmmmm, doesn't change that it shouldn't

In your opinion - you've already stated you don't believe the scale of the holocaust in historical records Marius.

You can get a fine of 100 euro.

And saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't an opinion, for it has been proved that it DID happen.

It only shows your political ideas, and being a Nazi should be punished as has happened.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In your opinion - you've already stated you don't believe the scale of the holocaust in historical records Marius.

When was that? If I remember correctly he said the guy was wrong, but what does that have to do with anything, this guy was arrested for stating his opinion. That is just wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you'll find the fact that it happens legally all the time makes it legally sound. There is no question that this move was illegal.

Besides which, the second part of that article means that discretion can make it virtually irrelevant, even if Austria had enshrined something like that in law, which I am not really sure it has. Even in the UK, which has, Parliament has the option to make law retroactive if it wishes.

True enough

Originally posted by Fishy
When was that? If I remember correctly he said the guy was wrong, but what does that have to do with anything, this guy was arrested for stating his opinion. That is just wrong.

It isn't an opinion, it is a negation of a fact .

Originally posted by Da preacher
You can get a fine of 100 euro.

And saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't an opinion, for it has been proved.

It only shows your political ideas, and being a Nazi should be punished as has happened.

No actually its a historical fact, but history has often been changed and proven wrong. Also again this guy doesn't say it never happened but that it didn't happen on the scale some other people claimed.

And even if it was proven without a doubt, since when is going against proven facts illegal? I could say i'm a better soccer player then the greatest soccer player in the world and I would be wrong, proven fact. Still won't go to jail for that though.

The Holocaust is different from soccer.

Originally posted by Da preacher
The Holocaust is different from soccer. How so?Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In your opinion - you've already stated you don't believe the scale of the holocaust in historical records Marius.

Nope I didn't..where did I state that?

And we are argueing opinions here so..yeah...certainly...in my opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How so?

Nope I didn't..where did I state that?

And we are argueing opinions here so..yeah...certainly...in my opinion.


So you don't believe the holocaust was on the scale it's recorded to be on? Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by Da preacher
The Holocaust is different from soccer.

Yes it is, but the fact remains that I'm going against given facts with an opinion and that is not illegal.

Denying the holocaust shouldn't be illegal either. Its somebody's right to deny if they want it, freedom of speech and all. But apparantly that doesn't count with certain subjects that hurt the western idea's. Its just state censorship and that is wrong.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So you don't believe the holocaust was on the scale it's recorded to be on? Is that what you're saying?

Where am I supposed to have said that? Are you getting your facts wrong?

Originally posted by Da preacher
It isn't an opinion, it is a negation of a fact .

And that's a totally misleading line to take.

You know full well that Holocaust Denial isn't being made illegal because it is incorrect, and you know full well that that is a ludicrous reason to make anything illegal.

It's made illegal because of a perception that it encourages racial hatred. But in the opinion of many, that is enormously over-zealous.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you'll find the fact that it happens legally all the time makes it legally sound. There is no question that this move was illegal.

Besides which, the second part of that article means that discretion can make it virtually irrelevant, even if Austria had enshrined something like that in law, which I am not really sure it has. Even in the UK, which has, Parliament has the option to make law retroactive if it wishes.

Article 7 doesn't have a discretion, it simply has an additional condition, being 'the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.' This is not very broad at all. The notable example of its application was the War Crimes Act of 1991, which, although not a crime per se when 'war crimes' were committed, the acts themselves fell foul of 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations', and thus came within the teleological scope of the article.

That is not applicable here. Retrospective criminal legislation is forbidden. This is of course English law- Austria may have a different approach.

Either way, it should not happen within the EC legal system.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It is about the holocaust in a number of European Countrie, sorry you're wrong VVD.

Well, no. It's a stupid thing to happen, all emotion aside.

Soon we wont be able to say that Armstrong never landed on the moon. History it seems we are going in the same direction as Stalin's USSR.

Originally posted by Da preacher
You can get a fine of 100 euro.

And saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't an opinion, for it has been proved that it DID happen.

It only shows your political ideas, and being a Nazi should be punished as has happened.

In short... We are not allowed our own political opinions whatever they may be? Perhaps we will start arresting Communists and Socialists aswell as Nazis...

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
In short... We are not allowed our own political opinions whatever they may be? Perhaps we will start arresting Communists and Socialists aswell as Nazis...

Thats what the hate crime legislation will make possible!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Thats what the hate crime legislation will make possible!

And you like that? Government censorship sucks. Censoring opinions is something a dictator would do, no freedom loving country should do things like this.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Thats what the hate crime legislation will make possible!

What will you do when they start areesting everybody who does not share the governments views?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
What will you do when they start areesting everybody who does not share the governments views?

thats not going to happen

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
What will you do when they start areesting everybody who does not share the governments views?

I know that one....

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know that one....

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

The Clash

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The Clash

Certainly

LONDON (Reuters) - Historian David Irving, jailed by an Austrian court for denying the Holocaust, refused on Wednesday to apologise for offending victims of the Nazi death camps and said he would not be silenced.

Irving, 67, told Sky Television he believed historians should be allowed to question official versions of history and said freedom of speech was the "right to be wrong".

"I come from a free country and I'm not going to let anybody silence me," he said.

Irving was sentenced to three years in prison on Monday for denying the murder of 6 million Jews. Austria's state prosecutor filed an appeal on Tuesday to lengthen the sentence.

"I think they are trying to silence me now," said Irving, who dismissed his trial as "theatre".

"They want to increase the sentence to silence me for even longer. They are not going to succeed I don't think."

Irving pleaded guilty, hoping for a suspended sentence, but the Vienna criminal court concluded he was only making a pretence of acknowledging Nazi Germany's genocide against Jews in order to escape a jail term.

Asked whether he regretted the offence he had caused to Holocaust survivors and their families, Irving replied:

"Freedom of speech means freedom to say things to other people that they don't want to hear. And if that causes offence to them then that's partly their problem and partially mine.

"Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, basically. Sometimes I'm wrong," he added.

CHANGED VIEWS

Irving told Sky he did not deny the Holocaust but acknowledged that his views had changed as he had learnt more.

"I don't like the phrase 'deny the Holocaust,'" he said.

"Any sane historian is going to be entitled to open this package that the media describe as the Holocaust and look at the individual contents and say 'well, this part I believe and this part I believe and most of that I believe but there is one thing here I don't believe. And that is what I did.

"That is not denying the Holocaust. It is saying 'listen, I'm not a mug, I want to be told the truth and nothing but the truth,'" he added. "It is not so much of a change of heart, it is just a refining of your position."

Assessing his case on Monday, the presiding judge decided Irving had not genuinely changed his position and had shown regret only to pay "lip service to the law" in Austria.

Irving, a self-taught historian who has written dozens of books on Nazi Germany and World War Two, has appealed.

He was arrested on a return visit to Austria last November, based on a warrant over lectures and a press interview he gave in 1989 in the Alpine republic, where denying the Nazi genocide is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Austria is keen to show it is tough on Holocaust denial since a significant number of Nazi leaders including Adolf Hitler came from Austria, and Jews and other critics accused the country of glossing over its past for decades after the war.

A British High Court ruling in 2000 rejected an Irving libel suit against an American professor and her publishers, declaring Irving "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist".

Wait, wait, wait....I remember we've got an Irving thread....yeah..we do....COOL.

and for being a holocaust denier, he will be sent to the anti-racism concentration camp.

Originally posted by PVS
and for being a holocaust denier, he will be sent to the anti-racism concentration camp.

Exactly. I said something very similar to this in my reply to teh second thread on this guy. However, I think it got lost because it was moved when I was posting.

Originally posted by PVS
and for being a holocaust denier, he will be sent to the anti-racism concentration camp.

Haha, and the bastard deserves it too...hope they don't run out of gas, with all the people Whirly wants to send there.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Exactly. I said something very similar to this in my reply to teh second thread on this guy. However, I think it got lost because it was moved when I was posting.

well, i just pictured that episode of south park where the kids have to go to tolerance camp.

Well, from what I know, there were many homosexuals in teh Nazi party. Much like any group concerned with it's image, it denounces it publically, while practicing it privately. That is by no means to say that many Nazis generally knew who was and was not gay, nor is that to say that they secretly condoned it. And Ernst Rohm was gay, but that isn't why he was executed. He was executed because as head of the SA, he was a threat to Hitler and the SS.

I have never once seen that been used as an argument and any normal historian is able to prove them wrong.

however that still doesn't mean that the people who claim that should go to jail. I don't see people sending Bush to jail for not allowing homosexuals to get married, or a lot of other people for that matter. Opinions no matter how stupid are just that opinions and should not be punished, unless they act upon them

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.

Only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernest Rohm, is believed by credible historians to have been gay.


That can't be an accidental choice of wording.

He was jailed under a 1947 Law, We were all misinformed!

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article346741.ece

It was 16 years too late, however, to stop him being jailedfor three years under Austria's 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism and criminalising the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
He was jailed under a 1947 Law, We were all misinformed!

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article346741.ece

It was 16 years too late, however, to stop him being jailedfor three years under Austria's 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism and criminalising the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes".

Makes more sense- the other explanation was implausible. I can't say I bothered to check its accuracy though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, and the bastard deserves it too...hope they don't run out of gas, with all the people Whirly wants to send there.

I would never wish to murder anyone, I pity fools who have not learnt from History!

So do I! Damn Austrians will they ever learn that denying freedom of speech is just like nazi germany...?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
So do I! Damn Austrians will they ever learn that denying freedom of speech is just like nazi germany...?

Right......... lots of Gas Chambers in use in Austris at the moment, what an intelligent post Gav. Well done!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Right......... lots of Gas Chambers in use in Austris at the moment, what an intelligent post Gav. Well done!

What an intelligent post SW! Anyone in the world would realise that i refered to the Austrains not alowing freedom of speech!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
What an intelligent post SW! Anyone in the world would realise that i refered to the Austrains not alowing freedom of speech!

But that doesn't make them Nazis and hate speak, they realise hurts themselves and is not "free speech".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
But that doesn't make them Nazis and hate speak, they realise hurts themselves and is not "free speech".

Who cares if it hurts people, everything we say can hurt people. Just being here can hurt people... We can't stop people from being hurt, and as long as he isn't starting any violent actions are asking people to start violent actions or trying to get them to start violent actions he shouldn't be breaking any laws.

Its rather ridiculous to lock him up for denying holocoust. Its his freedom of speach and thought which should by proxy allow him to deny whatever the hell he likes.

People think that if they let anyone say anything against people killed, they are in some way letting them down, which is false.

In some recess of David Irving's reptile brain, he knows that his indefensible imprisonment is helping his side. His side consists of all the enemies of open societies.

Irving, born in England in 1938, was a prodigy of perversity, asking for a copy of "Mein Kampf" as a school prize. He grew up to be a "moderate fascist" -- his description -- historian who has made a career of arguing, in many books and incessant speeches, that although many Jews died of disease and hardship during World War II, nothing like the Holocaust -- 6 million victims of industrialized murder -- occurred.



Holocaust deniers, from crackpots to the president of Iran, argue that the "so-called" gas chambers were only for showers or fumigation; that Zyklon B gas was too weak to produce mass deaths; that it was too strong to be used -- it would have killed those emptying the chambers; that Poles built the crematoria after the war as a macabre tourist attraction or by Jews to extort compensation; and that Germans concocted "evidence" of "genocide" to please their conquerors.

Holocaust denial, which is anti-Semitism tarted up with the trappings of historiography, is a crime in Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland. And in Austria, which criminalizes speech that "denies, grossly trivializes, approves or seeks to justify" Nazi atrocities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401800.html


Irving should not have been imprisoned, but he should not have said what he said either. Free speech without common sense is foolish! Free speech that is meant to hurt others is incitement - incitement is illegal in most countries.

So if I would call you an *******, which is meant to hurt you I should be arrested or thrown in jail or get a fine or whatever?

What if I say I do not believe in god near a church, that could hurt people. OR would say that god rules in front of a meeting of atheists? that could hurt people there feelings...

hurting people will always happen trying to prevent it is foolish if its done by words. Violence can be stopped or at least people should try, but to stop words from being said and punishing people from saying things like that, it is nothing short of foolish and it makes all those nations as bad as those they hate for not having freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Fishy
So if I would call you an *******, which is meant to hurt you I should be arrested or thrown in jail or get a fine or whatever?



No if it was to my face it would lead to a breach of the peace probably, so you would get in trouble yes. As well as probably hurt.

You would be charged with causing a breach of the peace. Calling someone names is not legal in most countries. As it infringes the individual you are calling names right to be left alone.

What he said was incitment to what exactly? Was there aver any violence inspired by what he said? Errr NO.

While I agree what Irving said was qrong. The holocaust did happen (My grandad was in Auchwitz) I know that. But for historical accuracy historians should be able to say what they want. Then another historian can come across and analize what has been said and support it or say its wrong. We must not lock people up!

Tony Blair said on Friday that we will never lock people up in Britain up for denying the holocaust by the way.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
No if it was to my face it would lead to a breach of the peace probably, so you would get in trouble yes. As well as probably hurt.

You would be charged with causing a breach of the peace. Calling someone names is not legal in most countries. As it infringes the individual you are calling names right to be left alone.

Nothing would happen to him. The police would just tell him to be on his way he would not be arrested.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Tony Blair said on Friday that we will never lock people up in Britain up for denying the holocaust by the way.

Thats a nice change as he hasn't been saying anything worth a bother as of late, or ever in fact.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Tony Blair said on Friday that we will never lock people up in Britain up for denying the holocaust by the way.

3 things Tony Blair will not always be in power, BNP leaders have been imprisoned lately for incitement and I do not think he should have been given 3 years either.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
3 things Tony Blair will not always be in power, BNP leaders have been imprisoned lately for incitement and I do not think he should have been given 3 years either.

Irving was an idiot. Perhaps he should visit Poland and see some concentration camps, however locking up people for difference of opinion is crazy. I guarantee if this was taken to the Court of Human Rights he'd be realised.

Nick Griffin was let off.

There is a huge difference between telling people to attack Muslims and saying the holocaust didn't happen.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Irving was an idiot. Perhaps he should visit Poland and see some concentration camps, however locking up people for difference of opinion is crazy. I guarantee if this was taken to the Court of Human Rights he'd be realised.

Nick Griffin was let off.

There is a huge difference between telling people to attack Muslims and saying the holocaust didn't happen.

Not Nick Griffin, I can't remember the guys name, I'll have to look it up. But Yes Irving was an idiot. I am not sure he would be released, this is entrenched law in all the Countries I mentioned, I58 people have been convicted in Austria using it over the last 10 years.

And Griffin wasn't let off he recieved a nine month suspended sentence.

Perhaps Bush will include them in the Axis of Evil as oppressors of human rights! :eek!: He'd get off!

I wonder...

Has the Holocaust been exaggerated? It says in Wikipedia that ~3,000,000 Jews from Poland were killed, making that the most significant source of Jewish mortality. Where did all these Jews come from? And why was there such a huge population of Jews in Poland?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I wonder...

Has the Holocaust been exaggerated? It says in Wikipedia that ~3,000,000 Jews from Poland were killed, making that the most significant source of Jewish mortality. Where did all these Jews come from? And why was there such a huge population of Jews in Poland?




Jews had been immigrating to Poland since the middle ages. I do know that it was one of the largest population centers in Europe for Jews, and that was based on it's tolerence for their ethnicity and relious differences from "mainstream" European culture/religion/ethnicity.

As for teh numbers from the Holocaust, not just Jews, I think if anything, the numbers would be higher than the official records indicate. How many people were just shot in the back of the head before the trains even left the stations? The Germans kept remarkable records at teh camps, but that was only once the prisoners had reached the camps. There's no telling how many were off'd before they even arrived. So, the 3 million (Jews) mark in Poland alone is reasonable. I think only a couple of hunderd thousand were left after the war.