Australian Holocaust denier held at Heathrow

[Kerjack]

b9a_1222924222

The gist of it, Australian guy denies the holocaust happened or at least happened how they say it happened (couldn't tell). Publishes website and other materials on it. Anyhoo, on the way to DUBAI he has a stop over in Heathrow. Cops board the plane and arrest him, facing extradition to Germany where he could get 5 years in prison.


Anyone else think that is a total load of bollocks?

[Insomniac]

Why do the Germans have to be such Nazis about the Holocaust?

[Archetype]

Not the first, won't be the last.

[Kerjack]

Maybe we should start arresting every person that flies through the US that has had sex with a 17 year old and expedite them to Iran.

[Archetype]

Why does that seem like an accurate comparison to you?

[Mustard]

Maybe we should start expiditing all hot 18 year old women who like fat guys to Oregon?

[Kerjack]

In many countries having sex with a 17 year old is legal, in the US it is not, and I'm guessing Iran if they where not married or some such. Denying the Holocaust does not cause direct harm to a individual. As far as our courts are concerned having sex with someone under the age of 18 does.

Hence my conclusion is my example would be more acceptable then whats actually happening.

[Insomniac]

What about a dude who had sex with 12-year-olds?

[Kerjack]

Alright we can expedite Claydon too.

[Archetype]

What about a dude who had sex with 12-year-olds?
Why do I get the feeling this isn't a hypothetical?

[Jack Bauer]

this guy is a dick

[Kerjack]

Sure, but arrest him for it? Even when he is just passing through? The UK are mega dicks.

[Archetype]

What part of "wanted man" did you miss?

[Kerjack]

So was Dr. Richard David Kimble.

Edit: So what? He was wanted in Germany not the UK.

[Archetype]

So was Dr. Richard David Kimble.

Edit: So what? He was wanted in Germany not the UK.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/criminal/extradition/fsj_criminal_extradition_en.htm

A European Arrest Warrant, valid throughout the European Union has replaced extradition procedures between Member States of the enlarged Europe. Such a warrant may be issued by a national issuing judicial authority if the person whose return is sought is accused of an offence for which the maximum period of the penalty is at least a year in prison, or if he or she has been sentenced to a prison term of at least four month

EDIT: Hmmm.....

http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/european-arrest-warrant-ruled-unconstitutional-germany/article-142674

The highest German court has annulled a law of July 2004 which implemented the EU arrest warrant in Germany.

In the case, Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian-born German, suspected of being an Al Qaeda operative, had been held in custody for extradition to Spain under the warrant procedure (see EurActiv 19 April 2005 (http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/eu-arrest-warrant-challenged-german-court/article-138220)). On appeal, on 18 July 2005, the Constitutional Court held that the law applying the warrant did not respect fundamental rights and procedural guarantees and so was contrary to the German Constitution.


Must have got overturned since?

[Archangel]

In many countries having sex with a 17 year old is legal, in the US it is not, and I'm guessing Iran if they where not married or some such. Denying the Holocaust does not cause direct harm to a individual. As far as our courts are concerned having sex with someone under the age of 18 does.

Hence my conclusion is my example would be more acceptable then whats actually happening.

As far as YOUR courts are concerned. Seriously, don't judge our laws sitting in fucking Montana. Your country didn't systematically slaughter six million people in a few years. The unofficial motto of the Federal Republic of Germany, and by association the European Union, is NEVER AGAIN, and if you don't like our methods, fuck you. You never had your entire continent destroyed twice by wars that originated in your country. You can keep your highfalutin ideas about freedom of speech, we're pragmatists, more interested in keeping people from getting killed. ANYTHING that glorifies, absolves, or sympathises with the cancer that was national socialism has to be nipped in the fucking bud, full stop.
To somebody sitting 7,000 miles away, denying the Holocaust might seem harmless, but here, it most definitely does not. Ask anybody in Europe, especially Germany, whether they think putting Holocaust deniers in prison is a bad idea. And then throw those in jail who say "yes".

You pass judgement while not knowing jack shit about the laws of the EU, about what the Holocaust means to the German national psyche, or anything that goes on outside of your little world.

Shut the fuck up.

[Menace2Sobriety]

And stay out of our continent!

[Morfin]

You pass judgement while not knowing jack shit about the laws of the EU, about what the Holocaust means to the German national psyche, or anything that goes on outside of your little world.

Shut the fuck up.

Say all you want. And I freely admit to not knowing anything about Germany's or the EU's freedom of speech laws.

To me, as an American born and raised on people having a right to freedom from government persecution of speech and ideas, I find it repugnant that a person cannot express an opinion -- regardless of how stupid -- freely. Just as I find Middle Eastern laws prohibiting people from carrying the Bible, or allowing women to walk around uncovered, or laws allowing honor killings, repugnant.

Of course, there are minor exceptions to freedom of speech, such as the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowed movie theatre," but the logical steps from publicizing holocaust denial to violence against Jews are long leaps indeed.

Having said that, if a country wishes to have such laws, that is their perogative as a democratic society. So, Germany can have whatever laws its people agree to, and I can freely express my opinion that I do not agree with this one.

[Tar Heel]

As far as YOUR courts are concerned. Seriously, don't judge our laws sitting in fucking Montana. Your country didn't systematically slaughter six million people in a few years. The unofficial motto of the Federal Republic of Germany, and by association the European Union, is NEVER AGAIN, and if you don't like our methods, fuck you. You never had your entire continent destroyed twice by wars that originated in your country. You can keep your highfalutin ideas about freedom of speech, we're pragmatists, more interested in keeping people from getting killed. ANYTHING that glorifies, absolves, or sympathises with the cancer that was national socialism has to be nipped in the fucking bud, full stop.
To somebody sitting 7,000 miles away, denying the Holocaust might seem harmless, but here, it most definitely does not. Ask anybody in Europe, especially Germany, whether they think putting Holocaust deniers in prison is a bad idea. And then throw those in jail who say "yes".

You pass judgement while not knowing jack shit about the laws of the EU, about what the Holocaust means to the German national psyche, or anything that goes on outside of your little world.

Shut the fuck up.

Easy arch. I think he's homeschooled... Not that he would have learned anything in real school that would make him think otherwise, but at least he'd get some better social skills out of it. I think being homeschooled is actually a serious handicap in life... Wait, what was I talking about?

[freegood]

I like my free speech.

Makes me know who the loonies are upfront.

so i can plot their destruction

[Kerjack]

As far as YOUR courts are concerned. Seriously, don't judge our laws sitting in fucking Montana. Your country didn't systematically slaughter six million people in a few years. The unofficial motto of the Federal Republic of Germany, and by association the European Union, is NEVER AGAIN, and if you don't like our methods, fuck you. You never had your entire continent destroyed twice by wars that originated in your country. You can keep your highfalutin ideas about freedom of speech, we're pragmatists, more interested in keeping people from getting killed. ANYTHING that glorifies, absolves, or sympathises with the cancer that was national socialism has to be nipped in the fucking bud, full stop.
To somebody sitting 7,000 miles away, denying the Holocaust might seem harmless, but here, it most definitely does not. Ask anybody in Europe, especially Germany, whether they think putting Holocaust deniers in prison is a bad idea. And then throw those in jail who say "yes".

You pass judgement while not knowing jack shit about the laws of the EU, about what the Holocaust means to the German national psyche, or anything that goes on outside of your little world.

Shut the fuck up.


Hey if he where arrested in Germany or hell even the EU while actually visiting either place I would say I just don't agree with the law. But arresting someone as they just are passing through is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. Seriously. He bought a ticket to Dubai, not London. He never even set foot off the plane.

It is the UK and Germany that is shoving their beliefs down others throats with those type of actions. Whats next? Are you going to invade Chile? A large movement there actually are becoming Nazi's, not just questioning a certain period of history, they are preaching Hitlers message. Shouldn't that be about a million times worse?

[Archangel]

Kerjack, again, shut up about thing you know nothing about. It makes you sound like the worst kind of moron.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

It would be cooler if he sounded like a Mormon.

[Archangel]

Seriously, somebody in fucking Montana is telling Europe how to make up her laws and govern her citizens.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Well to be fair you guys let someone from Austria tell you who to invade and who to cook in ovens.

[Kerjack]

Kerjack, again, shut up about thing you know nothing about. It makes you sound like the worst kind of moron.

Please enlighten me. Teach me why arresting a man on a plane that had no intentions of setting foot on ground where his ideas are against the law is justifiable.

[Kerjack]

Seriously, somebody in fucking Montana is telling Europe how to make up her laws and govern her citizens.

I bet the Muslims say the same this about you.

[Stax]

Seriously, somebody in fucking Montana is telling Europe how to make up her laws and govern her citizens.

Well, no he isn't Arch. He is availing himself of the right to free speech that most civilized nations agree is a right of all human beings. He is speaking his opinion that laws punishing ideas are a dangerous step, something I tend to agree with. Legally, obviously, the law is the law so if Holocaust denial is illegal and this whole extradition process was done properly, *shrug*. But I have the same problem with Holocaust denial laws that I do with hate crime laws. Free speech is no longer free speech when the government has the right to regulate a specific message. A murder is a murder, doing it because of some hateful thought doesn't make it worse. A crazy person is a crazy person, whether they are denying the moon landing or the Holocaust.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I wonder why Germany hasn't arrested the whole nation of Iran.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Hell yeah we cooked them bitches good. Don't you dare say we didn't fuck them Jews up or we will hang your ass. Bitches betta recognize.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

pwnt

[Morfin]

You can't self-pwn. There's a law against that. Or there should be.

[Archangel]

Say all you want. And I freely admit to not knowing anything about Germany's or the EU's freedom of speech laws.

To me, as an American born and raised on people having a right to freedom from government persecution of speech and ideas, I find it repugnant that a person cannot express an opinion -- regardless of how stupid -- freely. Just as I find Middle Eastern laws prohibiting people from carrying the Bible, or allowing women to walk around uncovered, or laws allowing honor killings, repugnant.


I am fairly sure that Americans do not actually grasp just how immense a trauma WWII was for the European continent.


You're an idealistic country, built on principles - you're still trying to interpret the words of the Constitution, trying (surprisingly successfully) to adapt 200-year-old ideals to our day. Modern Europe is nothing if not pragmatic. We will do ANYTHING to prevent THAT from happening again. Fuck freedom of speech. When 50 million of your neighbours died within 5-6 years, mindsets, paradigms, epistemes change. You learn that even the most noble ideals have to take a back seat to certain other priorities.
Think about it as joking about rape next to a rape victim. Freedom of speech or not, don't be surprised if she slugs you. Traumata are like that.


Of course, there are minor exceptions to freedom of speech, such as the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowed movie theatre," but the logical steps from publicizing holocaust denial to violence against Jews are long leaps indeed.


Principiis obsta. Should we wait until the guy has thousands of followers, until the whole thing becomes a movement, an institution? It's like ABM defence: The easiest way to prevent the worst is to kill it in the early phase.


Having said that, if a country wishes to have such laws, that is their perogative as a democratic society. So, Germany can have whatever laws its people agree to, and I can freely express my opinion that I do not agree with this one.

Polls show that even within the younger generations, a vast majority thinks that people who deny the holocaust or otherwise glorify nazism should be punished. Our country, our laws. Again, you people have no idea what it's like to see your entire continent in ruins; to you, war is something that happens to other people. You may lose your buddy's cousin in Iraq - nobody you know has lost their entire extended bloody family, all their possessions, and most of their friends. Again, you don't know what it's like.
You gladly parted with some of your freedoms because some Abdullahs killed 3,000 of your countrymen, and you judge us because we curb some freedoms because of 50 FUCKING MILLION dead?

Honestly, how would the world react if we let nazis freely talk in Germany? This is the hypocrisy that pisses me off. Because if we let them do as the please, the same people criticising us now would be the ones talking about how we were all evil nazis and shit.
And by the way, prison terms are only for the people who use the denial of the Holocaust for public demagoguery. As a private person, you can think and say what you want.

And anyway, I'm pretty sure that in America, if you say in public that the president should be killed, the FBI and the USSS would be knocking at your door in rather short order. There are limits to free speech everywhere.

[Pharon]

Seriously, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The guy wasn't going around in Germany preaching that the Holocaust didn't happen -- though even if he were I'd still question whether or not he's actually "harming" anyone. The fact of the matter is that he was in a different country -- one that, to my knowledge, doesn't have that same law -- and the fucking Germans have the audacity to demand extradition? Talk about arrogant and fucked up.

And you (Arch) have the gall to complain about the U.S. government exerting unreasonable influence outside their borders?

Unbelievable.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You can't self-pwn. There's a law against that. Or there should be.


Then you obviously didn't read the forum F.A.Q.'s where is says specifically I can do whatever the fuck I want.

[Stax]

You gladly parted with some of your freedoms because some Abdullahs killed 3,000 of your countrymen, and you judge us because we curb some freedoms because of 50 FUCKING MILLION dead?


No Arch, we don't, don't fucking simplify. We had those laws for maybe a year and people started bitching. It's the most overquoted cliche thing in the world, but "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

YEAH STAX YOU DICKHEAD. STOP TRYING TO TAKE MY GUNS

[Stax]

Wha?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Obviously this guy isn't trying to deny that WWII happened. He probably just owns a soap company and is pissed about the slogan "The Best Soap Comes From Jews".

[Archangel]

Well, no he isn't Arch. He is availing himself of the right to free speech that most civilized nations agree is a right of all human beings.
Wrong. There is no right to free speech in the German constitution. What we have is freedom of opinion. Big difference. Same goes for a number of other European countries.

He is speaking his opinion that laws punishing ideas are a dangerous step, something I tend to agree with. Legally, obviously, the law is the law so if Holocaust denial is illegal and this whole extradition process was done properly, *shrug*.

Again, nobody is being punished for his ideas or opinions. It's the public denial of nazi crimes that is considered demagoguery, and thus illegal.

But I have the same problem with Holocaust denial laws that I do with hate crime laws. Free speech is no longer free speech when the government has the right to regulate a specific message. A murder is a murder, doing it because of some hateful thought doesn't make it worse. A crazy person is a crazy person, whether they are denying the moon landing or the Holocaust.

In America, maybe. But today's Europe defines itself in some way through and against what happened between '33 and '45. Never being like this again is what defines all of our laws and policies. It's why there is a European Union, which is a brainchild of De Gaulle and Adenauer. It's our #1 priority, not some evanescent ideal.

The problem is that the cancer isn't fully eradicated. There are still those who agree with the atrocities of that period. There is still some fertile soil for that shit. In your country, it might seem harmless, but from where I sit, nothing about nazism is harmless.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I dunno, that hats were pretty cool. But you're right about my Mauser. Deer should be afraid.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Well now I'm bored. Arch won't even try to combat "awesome".

[Archangel]

Seriously, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The guy wasn't going around in Germany preaching that the Holocaust didn't happen -- though even if he were I'd still question whether or not he's actually "harming" anyone. The fact of the matter is that he was in a different country -- one that, to my knowledge, doesn't have that same law -- and the fucking Germans have the audacity to demand extradition? Talk about arrogant and fucked up.

And you (Arch) have the gall to complain about the U.S. government exerting unreasonable influence outside their borders?

Unbelievable.

Outside whose borders? It's called the European bloody UNION. If the FBI caught someone in Texas for something he did in Arizona, and sent him back for trial, would anybody complain?

Exactly.

You people haven't fully grasped just how far national borders and laws are gone here. One should think that Americans would understand the concept of states uniting...

[Morfin]

And anyway, I'm pretty sure that in America, if you say in public that the president should be killed, the FBI and the USSS would be knocking at your door in rather short order. There are limits to free speech everywhere.

I beg to differ. They may investigate in terms of whether there is an actual threat or whether he is inciting violence, but they cannot prevent you from uttering that thought or having an opinion -- which is what this guy did with his website.

Besides that, I agreed: Your country, your laws. I still have my opinion, whether you consider it unlearned or idealistic.

[Archangel]

You people think that freedom is letting people run around and shoot each other with semiautomatic .223 carbines. Fine. We don't, and you don't give a fuck about our opinion. We think that preventing the spread of nazi ideology is more important than some moron's freedom of speech. You don't get it, fine. We don't care, either.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I would think that being "free" would mean we could almost anything the fuck we want. If a redneck wants to shoot a coyote with a .223 and lob off a catfish head with a samurai sword, who cares as long as he doesn't do the same to the cashiers at the piggly wiggly.

Same as if you want to be a crazy person and pretend then the Nazis liked the Jews. Big deal. As long as you don't invade Poland. Who gives a fuck?

[Archangel]

No Arch, we don't, don't fucking simplify. We had those laws for maybe a year and people started bitching. It's the most overquoted cliche thing in the world, but "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There's nothing little or temporary about preventing the spread of an ideology that laid waste to an entire continent, and which still has supporters. Hell, after WWII, countries like Italy seriously considered communism as an alternative, just to prevent something like that from ever happening again. Think about that. 50 million Europeans thought about giving up ALL their freedoms, only so something like WWII would be a thing of the past.

Again: You will never understand it. If you're smart, pray that you never will.

[fuldstændigamok]

Hey if he where arrested in Germany or hell even the EU while actually visiting either place I would say I just don't agree with the law.
Heathrow is not in Europe?

But arresting someone as they just are passing through is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. Seriously. He bought a ticket to Dubai, not London. He never even set foot off the plane.
Again, Heathrow is not in Europe?
Dumb analogy I guess, but just to get down to your level of stupidness, if Osama was on a plane from whatever fucking cave to whatever another fucking cave and making a stop-by in Heathrow, shouldnt he be arrested?

It is the UK and Germany that is shoving their beliefs down others throats with those type of actions.
Im pretty sure it would have been the same in any other European airport.
Whats next? Are you going to invade Chile? A large movement there actually are becoming Nazi's, not just questioning a certain period of history, they are preaching Hitlers message. Shouldn't that be about a million times worse?
Is it Europe, dumbass? We re not like you, imposing our beliefs and laws on other continents. You screw South America on a regular basis, we don t.

[Archangel]

I wonder where my fellow Europeans are, because I'd really like to hear fuld and Axel's take on this.


EDIT: Ah.

[Morfin]

You people think that freedom is letting people run around and shoot each other with semiautomatic .223 carbines. Fine. We don't, and you don't give a fuck about our opinion. We think that preventing the spread of nazi ideology is more important than some moron's freedom of speech. You don't get it, fine. We don't care, either.

You see, Arch, this is why people have a problem with you: You get too emotional and your arguments fall off. Some of us American posters disagree with your law, you turn around and belittle our Second Amendment (a "right" which I, in fact, am not fond of). And instead of agreeing to disagree, you have to throw in that "we don't get it." All I can say to you is, "Whatever."

Oh, any by the way, because I know how much you value my suggestions, starting out a post with "You people..." will never win friends and influence people.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

The thing I don't get is... Australia isn't in the EU right? Is it really in your laws that you can arrest someone for something they say on another continent?

The thing about Osama is a little different because he is actively engaged in killing citizens. He isn't just saying death to America he is doing it.

If the Australian had visited EU to invade France I'd say you have something.

[Axel]

^WOW!

...To me, as an American born and raised on people having a right to freedom from government persecution of speech and ideas, I find it repugnant that a person cannot express an opinion -- regardless of how stupid -- freely...So far Bin Laden’s direct involvement in 9/11 attack hasn’t been proven. Of course he issued a fatwa that “Muslims should force the United States and its allies to withdraw their military forces from the Arabian peninsula, by attacking American military and civilian targets” – but that was only a matter of speech. In fact he was only exercising his freedoms, right?

Thus, no way he’d be arrested if he'd ever stop over at Miami Airport on his way to Havana.

Let me remind you, that US authorities still keep hundreds of foreign citizens, who haven’t ever stepped on US ground before, detained for years without even being allowed for a due process.

So much about US noble, elevated principles on human rights.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

WOW!!!!!!!!!

So far it hasn’t been proven Bin Laden’s direct involvement in 9/11 attack. Of course he issued a fatwa that “Muslims should force the United States and its allies to withdraw their military forces from the Arabian peninsula, by attacking American military and civilian targets” – but that was only a matter of speech. In fact he was only exercising his freedoms, right?

Thus, no way he’d be arrested if he'd ever stop over at Miami Airport on his way to Havana.

Let me remind you, that US authorities still keep hundreds of foreign citizens, who haven’t ever stepped on US ground before, detained for years without even being allowed for a due process.

So much about US noble, elevated principles on human rights.

No it has been proven. A confession is proof.

[Archangel]

You see, Arch, this is why people have a problem with you: You get too emotional and your arguments fall off. Some of us American posters disagree with your law, you turn around and belittle our Second Amendment (a "right" which I, in fact, am not fond of). And instead of agreeing to disagree, you have to throw in that "we don't get it." All I can say to you is, "Whatever."

Oh, any by the way, because I know how much you value my suggestions, starting out a post with "You people..." will never win friends and influence people.

Because some of your fellow Americans didn't belittle and ridicule our laws?

The point that I'm trying to make is valid, though, in my opinion. You have laws that we don't get, we have some that you don't get. It's because we're two rather different societies.
However, at least I try to see the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, and try to understand why people cling to it. Some of the American posters in this thread see something that runs counter to their cherished freedom of speech, and start judging at once, without even trying to comprehend the rationale behind it. It's the inability to accept different ways of thought, to see through the other's eyes that irks me.

What am I supposed to do, tell you that our laws are stupid when I'm deeply convinced that they are not? The whole world isn't America. Other people have other priorities, and care as much about your opinions about them as you would care about a Spaniard's opinion concerning the 2nd Amendment.

[Kerjack]

Let me remind you, that US authorities still keep hundreds of foreign citizens, who haven’t ever stepped on US ground before, detained for years without even being allowed for a due process.


And I agree this is wrong.

[Axel]

No it has been proven. A confession is proof.Only in a due process.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I care about buttsecksing hot bitches, and now i has to go to sch00l.

[fuldstændigamok]

The thing I don't get is... Australia isn't in the EU right? Is it really in your laws that you can arrest someone for something they say on another continent?
On this particular issue, most European nations can, laws are extraordinaly though regarding anything touching this period of time. Holocaust denying is a major offence, as it should be (and it\s ME saying that, not the most Israel friendly guy in the world). A bit like you guys, and your laws regarding anyone suspected of being a terrorist.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Oddly enough after every post in this thread that actually makes sense to me.

[Morfin]

So far it hasn’t been proven Bin Laden’s direct involvement in 9/11 attack. Of course he issued a fatwa that “Muslims should force the United States and its allies to withdraw their military forces from the Arabian peninsula, by attacking American military and civilian targets” – but that was only a matter of speech. In fact he was only exercising his freedoms, right?

Thus, no way he’d be arrested if he'd ever stop over at Miami Airport on his way to Havana.

Let me remind you, that US authorities still keep hundreds of foreign citizens, who haven’t ever stepped on US ground before, detained for years without even being allowed for a due process.

So much about US noble, elevated principles on human rights.

I believe I posted that there are limits to free speech and inciting violence is one of them. As to Osama bin Laden, he has been linked to the 9/11 crimes. If he is arrested, it will not be on a "free speech" basis, but on murder conspiracy and terrorism basis.

I couldn't agree with you more about Gitmo and holding people without due process. I fervently believe and have argued on GMF that not only should all such captured people either be granted POW status and then subject to Geneva convention rules or they should be entitled to habeas corpus, as our Supreme Court has thankfully ruled. So, you may ridicule the President's policies regarding the rights of the detainees, but, the bottom line is that our Government (which encompasses the president, Congress, and the courts) has ruled that the detainees are entitled to rights. So, while our President executed a policy, he was reined in. What I am trying to say is that our system of government did reach the right result. I don't defend the president's actions in this regard, but I do defend how our governmental system worked.

Maybe I am in the minority here, but I have said, I do not agree with this law, but have no issue with a country democratically deciding how they want to live. I also concede that I have not walked a mile in Germany's or the EU's shoes in terms of living through the holocaust and all the dead from the two world wars -- maybe I would feel different if I lived there? Maybe not. I respect your and Arch's and fuld's opinions, but from where I stand, I disagree. No big deal.

[Archangel]

A French commie Arab-lover agrees with me that people denying the Holocaust should be punished.

What more does it take to see that Europe is pretty united on this subject?

[Kerjack]

That is it, I deny the Holocaust.

*GASP*

[Stax]

There's nothing little or temporary about preventing the spread of an ideology that laid waste to an entire continent, and which still has supporters. Hell, after WWII, countries like Italy seriously considered communism as an alternative, just to prevent something like that from ever happening again. Think about that. 50 million Europeans thought about giving up ALL their freedoms, only so something like WWII would be a thing of the past.

Again: You will never understand it. If you're smart, pray that you never will.

Yes, I do understand Arch. I'm pretty sure our country enslaved an entire race for hundreds of years and then denied them rights for another 100 or so for good measure. But guess what? The KKK gets to march, publish their newsletters, have a website, etc. Why? Because the idea of the government deciding what speech is ok and what isn't is worse than letting some kooks talk.

[Kerjack]

Also we love the idea of people publicly admitting they are members of NAMBLA, without free speech we would not get the chance to heckle them.

[Da Raider]

As an American who supposedly has freedom of speech, I'd like to announce that I think it's a stupid fucking law. Just like when US authorities arrested the owners of a UK gambling site as they changed planes in the US going to some Carribean island...

[fuldstændigamok]

As an American who supposedly has freedom of speech, I'd like to announce that I think it's a stupid fucking law. Just like when US authorities arrested the owners of a UK gambling site as they changed planes in the US going to some Carribean island...

You\re latino. Your opinion counts for jackshit.

[Archangel]

Yes, I do understand Arch. I'm pretty sure our country enslaved an entire race for hundreds of years and then denied them rights for another 100 or so for good measure. But guess what? The KKK gets to march, publish their newsletters, have a website, etc. Why? Because the idea of the government deciding what speech is ok and what isn't is worse than letting some kooks talk.

You just answered the question.

In Europe, it's not just "some kooks". That's the fucking point behind all this. Fascist ideology is still very much alive here; Hell, Franco ruled Spain until well into the 1970s, and the fascist Alleanza Nazionale is part of Italy's ruling coalition. Today. Did you know that? They're powerful, well financed, and influential. Austria is about to elect an extreme-right party into its parliament, and France knows exactly what's up when you say the name "Jean-Marie Le Pen". This is WAY beyond some rednecks marching in some podunk backwater town in Mississippi.

The resurgence of fascism is a real danger here. The KKK will never be able to lead the South on an assault on DC; I cannot say with the same confidence that unless somebody stops them, fascism will never be able to take over Europe gain.
And explicitly BECAUSE we cannot, nor want to, control people's thoughts or ideas, we have to control what they are allowed to say in public. It's a slippery slope from talking about how immigrants are taking away German or French jobs to talking about how that Hitler bloke had some pretty good ideas.

The Holocaust is a part of the collective European psyche, like Christianity and the Renaissance. Regardless of your opinion of it, it's just there. To deny it is to open the door to a whole world of trouble.

[Stax]

You just answered the question.

In Europe, it's not just "some kooks". That's the fucking point behind all this. Fascist ideology is still very much alive here; Hell, Franco ruled Spain until well into the 1970s, and the fascist Alleanza Nazionale is part of Italy's ruling coalition. Today. Did you know that? They're powerful, well financed, and influential. Austria is about to elect an extreme-right party into its parliament, and France knows exactly what's up when you say the name "Jean-Marie Le Pen". This is WAY beyond some rednecks marching in some podunk backwater town in Mississippi.

The resurgence of fascism is a real danger here. The KKK will never be able to lead the South on an assault on DC; I cannot say with the same confidence that unless somebody stops them, fascism will never be able to take over Europe gain.
And explicitly BECAUSE we cannot, nor want to, control people's thoughts or ideas, we have to control what they are allowed to say in public. It's a slippery slope from talking about how immigrants are taking away German or French jobs to talking about how that Hitler bloke had some pretty good ideas.

The Holocaust is a part of the collective European psyche, like Christianity and the Renaissance. Regardless of your opinion of it, it's just there. To deny it is to open the door to a whole world of trouble.

Socialism is alive and well, there are multiple countries still led under it today. Can you read a copy of the Communist Manifesto in a coffee shop? There are plenty of dangerous ideas out there, this one is not special.

[Archangel]

That's stupid. No other idea caused both the most destructive conflict and the greatest crime in human history. I'd call that pretty "special".

[fuldstændigamok]

To be fair, Le Pen is pretty irrelevant nowadays. But in my other country, Pia Kjærsgaard is still very actual.
shivers

[Stax]

That's stupid. No other idea caused both the most destructive conflict and the greatest crime in human history. I'd call that pretty "special".

Stalin killed more people than Hitler and all of the Nazi Empire, and he was one Communist. Add in China's, Cuba's, and other such nations human rights violations?

[Archangel]

Yeah, but none of them are part of the European Union. How Russia deals with her communists is her business, and how you deal with the ghosts of slavery is yours. It's our duty to deal with what WE did.

Novel idea, minding your own business. I know.

[fuldstændigamok]

Stalin killed more people than Hitler and all of the Nazi Empire, and he was one Communist. Add in China's, Cuba's, and other such nations human rights violations?

Yeah, but Communism is awesome in principle. National-Socialism, not so much.
What people have done of it...That\s another story enterely.

[Stax]

Yeah, but none of them are part of the European Union. How Russia deals with her communists is her business, and how you deal with the ghosts of slavery is yours. It's our duty to deal with what WE did.

Novel idea, minding your own business. I know.

Hahaha, Arch, are you honestly suggesting you mind your own business? Pretty sure you bitch about everything that anyone says about anything on this board.

Everyone has the right, apparently even under German law according to you, to their own opinion. And it is my opinion that the punishment of an idea by the government undercuts the existence of any form of free speech (or whatever you call it) because it is no longer absolute but merely what the government allows. Other ideologies have presented similar levels of danger and are similarly alive today, picking one out is just silly.

[Axel]

I believe I posted that there are limits to free speech and inciting violence is one of them. As to Osama bin Laden, he has been linked to the 9/11 crimes. If he is arrested, it will not be on a "free speech" basis, but on murder conspiracy and terrorism basis.
I used Osama as a metaphor, trying to make you understand European stance about Holocaust.

Let’s try it this way: divide number of Holocaust’s victims by number of 9/11’s ones; now multiply your feeling about 9/11 by that ratio and you might understand what a waste majority of Europeans feels about Holocaust. That you might understand why would we like to prevent anything like that ever happen again - by any mean necessary. The law we have about Holocaust deniers is one of those means.

FYI, I wish Osama would be exterminated long time ago.

[Stax]

I used Obama as a metaphor, trying to make you understand European stance about Holocaust.

Let’s try it this way: divide number of Holocaust’s victims by number of 9/11’s ones; now multiply your feeling about 9/11 by that ratio and you might understand what a waste majority of Europeans feels about Holocaust. That you might understand why would we like to prevent anything like that ever happen again - by any mean necessary. The law we have about Holocaust deniers is one of those means.

FYI, I wish Obama would be exterminated long time ago.


Wow, you Freudian slip'd in Obama twice there. Yikes.

[Da Raider]

You\re latino. Your opinion counts for jackshit.

and you're French. Which means you over inflate the value of your opinion, which is in acuality, jackshit x 10.

[Archangel]

Hahaha, Arch, are you honestly suggesting you mind your own business? Pretty sure you bitch about everything that anyone says about anything on this board.

Everyone has the right, apparently even under German law according to you, to their own opinion. And it is my opinion that the punishment of an idea by the government undercuts the existence of any form of free speech (or whatever you call it) because it is no longer absolute but merely what the government allows. Other ideologies have presented similar levels of danger and are similarly alive today, picking one out is just silly.

And I think you have no idea of what you're talking about, and continue to demonstrate that fact with every one of your posts.

WE DON'T THINK LIKE YOU.

We don't have the same history, principles, ideas, priorities, ideologies, faiths, beliefs, etc as you do. And frankly, we don't want to.

So everything that you say might be 100% applicable to the US. But since this isn't the US, your opinion on how we should make our laws and govern our countries means jack shit. Morfin's got it right; he disagrees, but he doesn't judge. You, however, insist on telling us how what we're doing is wrong, when everybody here thinks it isn't. I mean, just how fucking arrogant is that? Are you telling us that you know better?

It's your total inability to get used to the idea that people from other societies think differently from you that terrifies me. That, and the arrogance to think that your set of values and priorities is the only one that counts.

[Axel]

Wow, you Freudian slip'd in Obama twice there. Yikes.Yikes, indeed! Edited.

Even if it wasn't a Freudian one.

[Stax]

And I think you have no idea of what you're talking about, and continue to demonstrate that fact with every one of your posts.

Man it feels awesome to totally not be lectured from afar.

WE DON'T THINK LIKE YOU.

AWESOME. CAPS ARE KEWL.

We don't have the same history, principles, ideas, priorities, ideologies, faiths, beliefs, etc as you do. And frankly, we don't want to.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2a7hbaf.jpg

So everything that you say might be 100% applicable to the US. But since this isn't the US, your opinion on how we should make our laws and govern our countries means jack shit. Morfin's got it right; he disagrees, but he doesn't judge. You insist on telling us how what we're doing is wrong, when everybody here thinks it isn't.

It's your total inability to get used to the idea that people from other societies think differently from you that terrifies me. That, and the arrogance to think that your set of values and priorities is the only one that counts.

Well, again, no Arch. In exactly the same way you voice your opinion (in a snooty way, at that) on every subject in the universe of GMF I (and others) am voicing mine. I'm not a government official, Arch, I have no power to alter German or European policy and make you practice law in an American way.

But what I am asking is a basic logical question and you've yet to answer it outside of "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" which isn't an answer. Free speech (or opinion if you want to call it that) is a pretty fundamental idea, not just an American one. The only argument you seem to make for why this situation unique is the uniqueness of Nazism and Facism in Europe, which just isn't true. As already said, Communism has real power in the world and has shown itself to have real revolutionary power, but you are still perfectly free to hold and speak and otherwise transmit communist ideas. Racism has shown itself to be a universal force (you yourself have shown some pretty heavy disdain for particular races) which leads to dangerous things, but government does not punish the idea (outside of hate crimes where an idea intensifies a crime, but those are pretty controversial laws).

[Axel]

Sincerely, does anybody of you believe that Americans have an absolute freedom of speech?

Limitations on freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech#Limit ations_on_freedom_of_speech)

The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#cite_note-11#cite_note-11) Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#cite_note-12#cite_note-12) Limitations to freedom of speech may occure through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#cite_note-leeds1-13#cite_note-leeds1-13)

[Archangel]

Man it Free speech (or opinion if you want to call it that) is a pretty fundamental idea, not just an American one.

Um, it is? Really? Care to back that up? Or do you get off spewing what is essentially dogma?

And again, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion are two vastly different things. One's public, the other is private.

The only argument you seem to make for why this situation unique is the uniqueness of Nazism and Facism in Europe, which just isn't true.

Again: blanket statement from somebody who doesn't understand the situation, without anything to back it up. It amuses me that you're telling us not only how to think, but how to feel about something. I honestly thought you were smarter than this.

As already said, Communism has real power in the world and has shown itself to have real revolutionary power, but you are still perfectly free to hold and speak and otherwise transmit communist ideas.

Are you illiterate? I just said that the Soviet Union and China aren't exactly founding members of the European Union. How they deal with their past is their business. How we deal with ours is ours.

That means "not yours", too, by the way.

Racism has shown itself to be a universal force (you yourself have shown some pretty heavy disdain for particular races) which leads to dangerous things, but government does not punish the idea (outside of hate crimes where an idea intensifies a crime, but those are pretty controversial laws).

And we don't give a fuck about your hate crimes, either, nor do we pass judgement on how you punish them.


And I've repeatedly said in this thread that ideas aren't punished, only the public proclamation of them in the service of demagoguery. But I guess it's hard to hear us dumb Europeans on your high horse of free speech.

[Archangel]

Three Europeans, from vastly different backgrounds, say that this is fair and just - in a European context - and yet, Stax insists on telling us how dumb our laws are.


So either Axel, fuld and me are all imbeciles (since we happen to think that these laws are anything but dumb), or you honestly are talking out of your arse.

[Stax]

Um, it is? Really? Care to back that up? Or do you get off spewing what is essentially dogma?

And again, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion are two vastly different things. One's public, the other is private.

This gentlemen was merely transfering planes, so I'm pretty sure this would even violate his private right of opinion.

Again: blanket statement from somebody who doesn't understand the situation, without anything to back it up. It amuses me that you're telling us not only how to think, but how to feel about something. I honestly thought you were smarter than this.

Who holds more elected seats in Europe, Socialists or Facists? Who has killed more people in the past 100 years, Socialists or Facists?

Are you illiterate? I just said that the Soviet Union and China aren't exactly founding members of the European Union. How they deal with their past is their business. How we deal with ours is ours.

And are you being purposefully dense? The point was a comparison of dangerous ideas, not of historical situations. Socialism has proven itself equally, or likely even more, dangerous than facism, yet these laws only regulate facism and Nazism.

That means "not yours", too, by the way.

You say something and you are going to be judged. You don't like it? Shut the fuck up.

And we don't give a fuck about your hate crimes, either, nor do we pass judgement on how you punish them.

That's great, I just continually mention them because I find them particularly stupid.

And I've repeatedly said in this thread that ideas aren't punished, only the public proclamation of them in the service of demagoguery. But I guess it's hard to hear us dumb Europeans on your high horse of free speech.

Really? Only the public proclamation of ideas is punished? So this guy set himself up on a soapbox while waiting for his connecting flight?

And you don't see where suppressing the speaking of an idea suppresses the thought of it?

[Archangel]

Weren't you the people who thought that Iraq would see things just as you, once Saddam was gone? That they would embrace freedom of speech and McDonald's?

[Stax]

Three Europeans, from vastly different backgrounds, say that this is fair and just - in a European context - and yet, Stax insists on telling us how dumb our laws are.


So either Axel, fuld and me are all imbeciles (since we happen to think that these laws are anything but dumb), or you honestly are talking out of your arse.

How many US based threads have you posted in, Arch?

Because by your logic you should be insulted for every single one of them.

[Stax]

Weren't you the people who thought that Iraq would see things just as you, once Saddam was gone? That they would embrace freedom of speech and McDonald's?

George W. Bush was that person. I am not saying Europe should abide by American customs or standards, I am however saying that they should:

A. Have logically consistent laws. Punishing one particular variety of dangerous speech and not others is not logically consistent.
B. Stop whining. You judge other countries laws by your standards all the time, I am doing the same.

[Archangel]

We get it, Stax, we are all stupid, you know everything better, and American laws and principles are so manifestly superior to ours that we should throw ours away and become all just like you.

[Stax]

We get it, Stax, we are all stupid, you know everything better, and American laws and principles are so manifestly superior to ours that we should throw ours away and become all just like you.

Yep, that's totally what I'm saying. I'm totally not asking for an explanation of why one form of speech that brings about bad actions gets to be banned in Europe because its 'your' speech historically.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Seriously, somebody in fucking Montana is telling Europe how to make up her laws and govern her citizens.What does someone's place of residence have anything to do with their argument?

[Archangel]

How many US based threads have you posted in, Arch?

Because by your logic you should be insulted for every single one of them.

Hve you lived in Europe? Have you talked to Holocaust survivors? Have you lost civilian family members in the War? No? Great.

If I talk about how US drinking age laws are stupid, it's because I couldn't get a beer in Chicago on my 20th birthday. If I say that American cars suck arse, it's because I've driven through half of California in a Buick, etc etc. That entitles me to an opinion. Sitting on your arse an ocean away and telling Europeans how to feel about our quintessential trauma of the past century, however, doesn't qualify you for jack shit.


And it's funny how you make this out to be about me, when Axel and fuld agree with me 100%. Feel like insulting them, too?
We feel that there are things more important than free speech, which eo ipso makes us cretins in your eyes. Fine, all I'm saying is that we don't give a flying fuck.

[Pharon]

Y'know what would be great? If you two bitches stopped talking past each other. It's getting tiresome.

[Stax]

Hve you lived in Europe? Have you talked to Holocaust survivors? Have you lost civilian family members in the War? No? Great.

If I talk about how US drinking age laws are stupid, it's because I couldn't get a beer in Chicago on my 20th birthday. If I say that American cars suck arse, it's because I've driven through half of California in a Buick, etc etc. That entitles me to an opinion. Sitting on your arse an ocean away and telling Europeans how to feel about our quintessential trauma of the past century, however, doesn't qualify you for jack shit.

Did you live through Prohibition? I guess your opinion on American alcohol laws mean shit.

OH WAIT, that's right, we have these things called brains and research that allow us to create opinions without DIRECTLY EXPERIENCING everything.


And it's funny how you make this out to be about me, when Axel and fuld agree with me 100%. Feel like insulting them, too?

Sure, fucking retards. Happy to oblige. Of course I haven't been insulting anyone, but a law I find foolish.

We feel that there are things more important than free speech, which eo ipso makes us cretins in your eyes. Fine, all I'm saying is that we don't give a flying fuck.

Well first, yes, I do believe that the idea of government poking around in speech to be a dangerous idea.

But even within that you have STILL (Jesus Christ I've asked one question over and over again without answer) have not explained how the logic holds that one PARTICULAR variety of speech that can lead to dangerous action needs regulation but others don't simply because it's happened in Europe before.

[fuldstændigamok]

Y'know what would be great? If you two bitches stopped talking past each other. It's getting tiresome.

Get rid of this sig or I ban you to the face forum forever and ever and ever.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Again, Heathrow is not in Europe?
Dumb analogy I guess, but just to get down to your level of stupidness, if Osama was on a plane from whatever fucking cave to whatever another fucking cave and making a stop-by in Heathrow, shouldnt he be arrested?Kimble was wanted by Interpol?

[Archangel]

What does someone's place of residence have anything to do with their argument?

In this case, everything. I don't tell a Japanese or a Chinese how to feel about the Rape of Nanking, or a Cambodian how to feel about the killing fields - for the simple reason that I can't beging to comprehend what it means to them - so I'd like to be shown the same courtesy regarding WWIIand the Holocaust for whom WWII is something that happens in Medal of Honor.

[Stax]

In this case, everything. I don't tell a Japanese or a Chinese how to feel about the Rape of Nanking, or a Cambodian how to feel about the killing fields - for the simple reason that I can't beging to comprehend what it means to them - so I'd like to be shown the same courtesy regarding WWIIand the Holocaust for whom WWII is something that happens in Medal of Honor.

No.

There, simple ain't it?

[Menace2Sobriety]

Let me remind you, that US authorities still keep hundreds of foreign citizens, who haven’t ever stepped on US ground before, detained for years without even being allowed for a due process.
And no one pretends that's okay.

[fuldstændigamok]

Kimble was wanted by Interpol?

Didnt you see the dumb analogy at the start of the sentence?
He wasnt wanted by Interpol/Europol BUT he was in Europe as a known holocaust denier. Enough by law to be arrested. Those are the law, my friend. That you like them or not doesnt matter, does it?

[TheImpossibleMan]

I fundamentally agree with Arch, but Jesus Christ man can you please go two seconds without lying. Maybe I missed it but I don't think Stax ever called you stupid and yet every single post you make is about how Stax is calling you, Europeans, Europes legal system, etc. stupid.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You just answered the question.

In Europe, it's not just "some kooks". That's the fucking point behind all this. Fascist ideology is still very much alive here; Hell, Franco ruled Spain until well into the 1970s, and the fascist Alleanza Nazionale is part of Italy's ruling coalition. Today. Did you know that? They're powerful, well financed, and influential. Austria is about to elect an extreme-right party into its parliament, and France knows exactly what's up when you say the name "Jean-Marie Le Pen". This is WAY beyond some rednecks marching in some podunk backwater town in Mississippi.

The resurgence of fascism is a real danger here. The KKK will never be able to lead the South on an assault on DC; I cannot say with the same confidence that unless somebody stops them, fascism will never be able to take over Europe gain.
And explicitly BECAUSE we cannot, nor want to, control people's thoughts or ideas, we have to control what they are allowed to say in public. It's a slippery slope from talking about how immigrants are taking away German or French jobs to talking about how that Hitler bloke had some pretty good ideas.

The Holocaust is a part of the collective European psyche, like Christianity and the Renaissance. Regardless of your opinion of it, it's just there. To deny it is to open the door to a whole world of trouble.


Maybe you Europeans shouldn't be so gullible as to think genocide is a sweet idea.

[Stax]

I fundamentally agree with Arch, but Jesus Christ man can you please go two seconds without lying. Maybe I missed it but I don't think Stax ever called you stupid and yet every single post you make is about how Stax is calling you, Europeans, Europes legal system, etc. stupid.

I called the law dumb. I think he extrapolated from that that I was calling those who supported it dumb.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Yeah, but none of them are part of the European Union. How Russia deals with her communists is her business, and how you deal with the ghosts of slavery is yours. It's our duty to deal with what WE did.

Novel idea, minding your own business. I know.Australia is not part of the EU.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

If Arch's argument stands firm that means if I were to say blah blah blah no holocuast, I should be arrested and brought to Germany for trial.

That's kinda gay.

[Axel]

Who holds more elected seats in Europe, Socialists or Facists? Who has killed more people in the past 100 years, Socialists or Facists?

And are you being purposefully dense? The point was a comparison of dangerous ideas, not of historical situations. Socialism has proven itself equally, or likely even more, dangerous than facism, yet these laws only regulate facism and Nazism.Socialism?

Dude, you can't even distinguish between Socialism and Communism, so far less between Socialism and Bolshevism – a mutant version of Communism that has actually killed millions.

Maybe you should rather STFU, mmmkay?

Sincerely, does anybody of you believe that Americans have an absolute freedom of speech?

Limitations on freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech#Limit ations_on_freedom_of_speech)Obviousely Stax does, right?

[Stax]

Obviousely Stax does, right?

Outside of hate crimes (for some fucking reason) the only restrictions of speech the Supreme Court allows to stand are so-called "place, time, and manner" restrictions that do not go to restricting the MESSAGE of speech but merely the practice of it. That is, you can't barge into a private government building to spout your message and claim "Oh oh, Free speech."

[Archangel]

But even within that you have STILL (Jesus Christ I've asked one question over and over again without answer) have not explained how the logic holds that one PARTICULAR variety of speech that can lead to dangerous action needs regulation but others don't simply because it's happened in Europe before.

Um, I have answered that question several times already, pretty early in the thread. It's not my fault that you only read what lets you construe arguments.

It has got nothing to do with logic. I used the analogy of the rape victim before, and I think it's fairly accurate. Sure, freedom of speech allows people to joke about rape in front of her, but you have to be prepared for the reaction.
You cannot apply cut and dried logic to the reactions to severe trauma, which is what WWII and the Holocaust were to the European collective psyche; sure, communism obviously killed a lot of people, but it didn't leave an entire continent in ashes. It didn't set out to eradicate an entire race of humans from the face of the earth. We did. Germans. We caused that shit, and left scars that are only now starting to heal. And boy, won't you let us forget it (speaking of not responding to people: I asked what the world would say if we actually let open nazi rhetoric happen in Germany. Funny how nobody answered that, either).

If a person becomes the victim of a traumatic experience, something happens to them. He/she might go out and buy a gun, stop trusting people, install a burglar alarm, or some such, none of which has to be 100% rational. If an entire continent of nation-states and people experience that trauma, they can act upon it, in a similar manner: They pass laws and vote people into office so that they never have to go through that again.


This is what this is. These laws weren't born out of logical analysis of idealistic principles; they were born as a knee-jerk reaction to trauma. This comes from the heart and gut, not the brain. We don't care about what makes sense or what is just; we just want this NEVER TO HAPPEN AGAIN. Everything else is secondary. Is that so hard to understand? Do you have to lecture the rape victim how it's statistically unlikely that she'll be raped twice, and that getting a gun will only cause more problems? How stupid she is for doing what she does?

Or do you try to understand where she's coming from, even if you cannot begin to comprehend the magnitude of what she's been through?

Jesus Christ. Do you still not fucking get it?



The funny thing is, I've said all of this before.

[Archetype]

Well, no he isn't Arch. He is availing himself of the right to free speech that most civilized nations agree is a right of all human beings.

Actually, I don't even think the US has an unconditional right to free speech, which I guess somebody already mentioned. I'd go so far as to say there is no such thing as free speech, anywhere. It's simply a matter of who's controlling the collective opinion.

[Stax]

Um, I have answered that question several times already, pretty early in the thread. It's not my fault that you only read what lets you construe arguments.

It has got nothing to do with logic. I used the analogy of the rape victim before, and I think it's fairly accurate. Sure, freedom of speech allows people to joke about rape in front of her, but you have to be prepared for the reaction.

Right, just as I could expect a German person to get really pissed about a Holocaust joke. Really pissed and legal action are not even close to the same thing.

You cannot apply cut and dried logic to the reactions to severe trauma, which is what WWII and the Holocaust were to the European collective psyche; sure, communism obviously killed a lot of people, but it didn't leave an entire continent in ashes.

Cuba and North Korea are just fine? Post-Soviet Russia is fine and dandy?

This is what this is. These laws weren't born out of logical analysis of idealistic principles; they were born as a knee-jerk reaction to trauma. This comes from the heart and gut, not the brain.

That is just not good.

We don't care about what makes sense or what is just; we just want this NEVER TO HAPPEN AGAIN. Everything else is secondary. Is that so hard to understand? Do you have to lecture the rape victim how it's statistically unlikely that she'll be raped twice, and that getting a gun will only cause more problems? How stupid she is for doing what she does?

Can you make jokes about rape in front of rape victims (to use your image) in Europe? I bet you can.

[Axel]

Outside of hate crimes (for some fucking reason) the only restrictions of speech the Supreme Court allows to stand are so-called "place, time, and manner" restrictions that do not go to restricting the MESSAGE of speech but merely the practice of it. That is, you can't barge into a private government building to spout your message and claim "Oh oh, Free speech."Oh really?

In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) . There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) protection, the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) for obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising). The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect.

Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies. However, the Motion Picture Association of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America) has a rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system#United_States), and movies not rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres, making the system almost compulsory. Since the organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World countries. However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape or disc form based on their content, nor does it affect movie distribution in public (i.e., government-funded) libraries. Since 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000), it has become quite common for movie studios to release "unrated" DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in.

Within the U.S., the freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next. Of all states, the state of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech). More specifically, through the Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center,_Campbell,_California#Th e_PruneYard.27s_role_in_American_constitutional_la w) case ruling, California residents may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public.

Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley) in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World), a working class union, found it necessary to engage in free speech fights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_fights) intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.

[Da Raider]

Sorry, but for once I have to say that Arch lost. Stax was merely pointing out that the law is asinine in its logic. Not insulting the intelligence of Euros who feel that the law is a good one. It appears to me that the law is based more on emotion than one of logic. That doesn't make it any less important, but Stax brings up good points and the rebuttals are basically summed up as "well, you never personally experienced WWII!" Well, that doesn't actually address the question.

And Arch, you have never been one to withhold your opinion on anything, so I find it surprising that you berate someone for trying to give theirs, especially since it was well thought out and presented in a fashion that didn't consist of the typical "oh yeah, well you suck" tripe.

Anyway, that's just merely my opinion. I don't agree with the law, but I don't agree with plenty of laws here in my country.

[Mr. Brown]

Well I never really looked in the laws of Germany, I guess I'm never going to Octoberfest b/c when I get drunk I say some wild shit and since I have freedom of opinion w/o speech I'm gonna be in some trouble. How does that work how can you have an opinion with out expressing it through some type of speech?

[Stax]

Oh really?

Fair enough, you are right I forgot about things like libel and obscenity (obscenity is so loosened now though that very little is successfully restricted using that as its argument). Things like the MPAA and RIAA are purely commercial, not governmental. I will say the FCC is pretty stupid, though.

[Archangel]

Sorry, but for once I have to say that Arch lost. Stax was merely pointing out that the law is asinine in its logic. Not insulting the intelligence of Euros who feel that the law is a good one. It appears to me that the law is based more on emotion than one of logic. That doesn't make it any less important, but Stax brings up good points and the rebuttals are basically summed up as "well, you never personally experienced WWII!" Well, that doesn't actually address the question.

And Arch, you have never been one to withhold your opinion on anything, so I find it surprising that you berate someone for trying to give theirs, especially since it was well thought out and presented in a fashion that didn't consist of the typical "oh yeah, well you suck" tripe.

Anyway, that's just merely my opinion. I don't agree with the law, but I don't agree with plenty of laws here in my country.



It's what I said; however, the fact that the law is illogical does neither mean that it is bad, or that it is dumb. It's HUMAN. That's all it is. Maybe in Stax's totally logical, cut-and-dried, black-and-white world it is, but here, logic went right out the window September 1, 1939. Do you honestly expect a 100% logical response to the greatest insanity in human history?

He values free speech, I, nay, we as Europeans value a system that prevents the resurgence of fascism by any means necessary.

[Archetype]

Things like the MPAA and RIAA are purely commercial, not governmental.
This makes no sense to me. Government censorship is bad, but corporate censorship, because "technically" it's private, or whatever you call it, that's totally cool? Who do you think has more political power?

[Archangel]

Well I never really looked in the laws of Germany, I guess I'm never going to Octoberfest b/c when I get drunk I say some wild shit and since I have freedom of opinion w/o speech I'm gonna be in some trouble. How does that work how can you have an opinion with out expressing it through some type of speech?

For the 100th time: These laws only apply to public speech, including publication and broadcast, designed to incite demagoguery.

As a private person in a private setting, you can say and think whatever the fuck you want. We aren't fascists here, you know. ;)

[Mr. Brown]

For the 100th time: These laws only apply to public speech, including publication and broadcast, designed to incite demagoguery.

As a private person in a private setting, you can say and think whatever the fuck you want. We aren't fascists here, you know. ;)
yeah but under the influence I've taken over the college radio and tried to incite a panty raid.

[Archangel]

Really pissed and legal action are not even close to the same thing.


It's not my fault that you only read what lets you construe arguments.


If a person becomes the victim of a traumatic experience, something happens to them. He/she might go out and buy a gun, stop trusting people, install a burglar alarm, or some such, none of which has to be 100% rational. If an entire continent of nation-states and people experience that trauma, they can act upon it, in a similar manner: They pass laws and vote people into office so that they never have to go through that again.

[Stax]

This makes no sense to me. Government censorship is bad, but corporate censorship, because "technically" it's private, or whatever you call it, that's totally cool? Who do you think has more political power?

No, it's pretty wrong. But I have a direct stake in American government, I am a memeber of it. If Tide or whoever wants to band together to create a group of corporations to threaten moving their ads or something based on what you put out there, who am I to say they can't? It's their money, they can spend it where they want.

It's what I said; however, the fact that the law is illogical does neither mean that it is bad, or that it is dumb. It's HUMAN. That's all it is. Maybe in Stax's totally logical, cut-and-dried, black-and-white world it is, but here, logic went right out the window September 1, 1939. Do you honestly expect a 100% logical response to the greatest insanity in human history?

Logic does a much better job of safely solving problems then the emotional knee-jerk response you admit this law stems from.

[Stax]

[my quote][your quote]

Right, but then you end up with a tyranny of the majority. I bet there are a host of things that 50%+1 of Germans don't like, do they all have laws against them?

[Da Raider]

He values free speech, I, nay, we as Europeans value a system that prevents the resurgence of fascism by any means necessary.

I agree that those are two separate value systems.

As somone who heavily leans towards free speech, it scares me that you could be grabbed at the airport for excercising free speech. Of course, our War on Terror has enabled laws that are just as bad or even worse.

[Axel]

Fair enough, you are right I forgot about things like libel and obscenity (obscenity is so loosened now though that very little is successfully restricted using that as its argument). Things like the MPAA and RIAA are purely commercial, not governmental. I will say the FCC is pretty stupid, though.I have to tell you, Stax: denying Holocaust is far, far more obscene than saying “fuck” in public and far, far, far more insulting than saying “fuck you” - especially to a relative of Holocaust’s victims.

Besides Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy), (aka Janet's Nip Slip)

Now this was really traumatising, not some shitty Holocaust denial.

[Da Raider]

I have to tell you, Stax: denying Holocaust is far, far more obscene than saying “fuck” in public and far, far, far more insulting than saying “fuck you” - especially to a relative of Holocaust’s victims.

Besides Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy),

Now this is really traumatising, not some shitty Holocaust denial.

Between the War on Terror and Janet Jackson's tits, we've had some shitty laws stuffed down our throats.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I really fail to see how a guy in Australia saying he doesn't think the Holocaust happened is the same as forming an Army to invade Europe.

[Kerjack]

So this question kind of goes into other topics but how does sending a man to prison for 5 years going to help with your goal? Do you think he will reform? Its not like he lives in Germany, you aren't just going to be able to arrest him again 2 days later when he says the same thing to the Australian press.

[Pharon]

He values free speech, I, nay, we as Europeans value a system that prevents the resurgence of fascism by any means necessary.
Point of clarification? I didn't go look at this guy's website, but was he arguing that Jews are bad and should be mass murdered? Or was he just saying that he believes that history's account of the Holocaust and the factual evidence on the ground are inconsistent with each other?

Because the latter is not even anti-Semetism, nevermind a promotion of genocide. It's actually no different than the people who believe in the JFK conspiracy -- they may be completely wrong, but asking questions in ignorance does not make you a horrible person.


Edit:

I really fail to see how a guy in Australia saying he doesn't think the Holocaust happened is the same as forming an Army to invade Europe.
Yeah, what that guy said.

[Stax]

I have to tell you, Stax: denying Holocaust is far, far more obscene than saying “fuck” in public and far, far, far more insulting than saying “fuck you” - especially to a relative of Holocaust’s victims.

Right, and tons of people in the US outside of the serious "family values" types hate the FCC.

And making judgments about which kinds of speech are 'worse' than others means you've already accepted that speech can be bad enough to warrant being ILLEGAL TO SAY, something I don't agree with.

[Axel]

And making judgments about which kinds of speech are 'worse' than others means you've already accepted that speech can be bad enough to warrant being ILLEGAL TO SAY, something I don't agree with.Let's make it clear: I don't agree with public hate speech and defamation generally, and I agree they've been made illegal.

The idea of absolute freedom of speech is delusional.

[Stax]

Let's make it clear: I don't agree with public hate speech and defamation generally, and I agree they've been made illegal.

The idea of absolute freedom of speech is delusional.

Right, but there's also something quite wrong with government getting to decide what is 'ok' to say. That's why it's a tight line to walk.

[Axel]

Right, but there's also something quite wrong with government getting to decide what is 'ok' to say. That's why it's a tight line to walk.
That has nothing to do with any of European governments. Legislative institutions (like Paliaments or National Assemblies) make or amend or repeal laws – simliar to the U.S. Congress.

Law enforcement has to execute those laws indiscriminately.

[Stax]

That has nothing to do with any of European governments. Legislative institutions (like Paliaments or National Assemblies) make or amend or repeal laws – simliar to the U.S. Congress.

Law enforcement has to execute those laws indiscriminately.

...Legislative institutions aren't considered government in Europe??

[Axel]

...Legislative institutions aren't considered government in Europe??Nope. Either not in USA, BTW.

P.S: gahhh!

[Pharon]

Nope. Either not in USA, BTW.
splain plz.

[Axel]

splain plz.Who passes laws in USA, U.S. Government of U.S. Congress?

[Stax]

Nope. Either not in USA, BTW.

P.S: c'mon Stax, use Wikipedia.

"The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both senators and representatives are chosen through direct election."

??

[Stax]

Who passed laws in USA, U.S. Government of U.S. Congress?



US Congress is a piece of the US Government...

[Pharon]

Who passed laws in USA, U.S. Government of U.S. Congress?


Here's the thing. The U.S. Government is composed of three branches: the Executive (who enforce the laws), the Legislative (who write the laws) and the Judiciary (who interpret the laws).

So to answer your question, the Legislative branch, i.e. Congress, is part of the U.S. Government and passes the laws.

[Axel]

Well than, terms might be different in USA than in continental EU. Anyhow, term Government in EU usually means the executive branch without any legislative power.

A Legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_assembly) with the power to create, amend, and ratify laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law). The law created by a legislature is called legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation) or statutory law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law).

Legislatures are known by many names, the most common being senates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senates) and congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress), although these terms also have more specific meanings.

EDIT: But that doesn't change my point

Let's make it clear: I don't agree with public hate speech and defamation generally, and I agree they've been made illegal.

The idea of absolute freedom of speech is delusional.

[Claydon]

Freedom of speech, even it is bullshit like this guy is spewing, has never been one of Europe's strong points.

[Axel]

WOW^

Let me resume:

German-born Friedrich Töben was detained on the territory of EU member state due to an EU arrest warrant against him.

The US legislation incorporates both exceptions to freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States#United_ States) and extradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition), right?

Denying what occurred in concentration camps means denying mass murder of millions of Europeans of various nationalities and ethnicities, including Germans not fitting to Nazi ideology.

Could you Americans let the rest of the world to have different values than you?

For instance: we might perceive denying Holocaust as more obscene, insulting and hateful than Jackson’s nip slip.

http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/PHOTOALBUM/janet-jackson-nipple-slip.jpg http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/holocaust00_1.jpg

[Archangel]

It's funny how when we cite the numerous examples in which the US government curbs free speech, Stax weasels out of it by saying that "he disagrees" with those policies, like that somehow makes a difference. Well, they're the policies of the governments you elect, so who gives a fuck what you think? I'm sure that there are people in Germany who disagree with this particular law, but the majority doesn't, and elects people who will enforce it.

And I guess what's pissing me and Axel off is Stax's inability to show any sort of compassion or understanding for what happened here. As for me criticising the US: I criticise PERIPHERAL aspects of it. NEVER the core. What Stax fails to understand is that the prevention of a re-occurrence of WWII is the founding principle of the European Union. It's like our Declaration of Independence. It is, in short, who we are, the spirit behind everything. So if you declare the laws that are based on that principle to be "stupid" from your black and white moral high horse, you declare everything about modern Europe to be null and void. And by the way, your founding principles are partly rooted in trauma and war, as well.

I don't say that the Constitution is stupid. I respect it as a great document of humanity, and recognise it as the spirit behind your laws, even though I disagree with many of them, especially if they run counter to the original idea.

I just would like to be shown the same respect.

I really fail to see how a guy in Australia saying he doesn't think the Holocaust happened is the same as forming an Army to invade Europe.
Anything that either publically glorifies or downplays the actions of the nazis is illegal. I know that it sometimes gets borderline ridiculous (no swastikas in WWII games, for example), but it's the way it is.
As I said, there is still a fascist minority in Europe. And some of their politicians are skilled, charismatic speakers, like Gianfranco Fini. What they're saying now is already bad enough: What if they start talking about how Hitler wasn't such a bad bloke, or that that Holocaust thing is overblown? We consider this to be far more dangerous that outlawing one tiny little aspect of free speech. Because that's all it is. Public speaking, publication or broadcast of Holocaust denial or pro-nazi propaganda. That's bloody all that is illegal here. Last I checked, none of the EU's political candidates ever considered banning books from public libraries; THAT could never happen here.
So this question kind of goes into other topics but how does sending a man to prison for 5 years going to help with your goal? Do you think he will reform? Its not like he lives in Germany, you aren't just going to be able to arrest him again 2 days later when he says the same thing to the Australian press.
Yeah, but his serves as an example. If you deny the Holocaust, stay the fuck out of Europe. There are no strong fascist parties in Australia or the US that I'm aware of, so whatever lies and/or hatred they spew over there will likely fal on deaf ears. To you, fascism is a joke, basically. To us, it's the most deadly serious thing in the entire world.

[Archangel]

Oh, and by the way, a friend of mine told me that when he was in the US during the 2003 Iraq War, he was unable to access the website of DER SPIEGEL (not my fault that it's all caps). So much for the country where unrestricted freedom of speech is championed at all times.

[Axel]

... If you deny the Holocaust, stay the fuck out of Europe.
...
To you, fascism is a joke, basically. To us, it's the most deadly serious thing in the entire world.I can't agree more.

A desire that such a tragedy wouldn't ever happen again was one of driving forces of the European integration.

While at freedom of speech:

While prior to September 11, 2001, the United States government had lauded Al Jazeera for its role as an independent media outlet in the Middle East, US officials have since claimed an anti-American bias to Al Jazeera's news coverage.
…
On 13 November, during the US invasion of Afghanistan, 2001 a U.S. missile strike destroyed Al Jazeera's office in Kabul.

[Morfin]

Oh, and by the way, a friend of mine told me that when he was in the US during the 2003 Iraq War, he was unable to access the website of DER SPIEGEL (not my fault that it's all caps). So much for the country where unrestricted freedom of speech is championed at all times.

I've kept quiet and respectful of differing viewpoints, Arch, but, like I said before, then you have to throw in some idiotic assumption and generalization and, frankly, it pisses me off.

First, no one -- not your friend, me, or you -- know exactly why your friend was unable to get on that site, a German site.

Second, I have a hard time believing there was some sort of intentional interference. (And this is a rhetorical question) Why would a private ISP care about a German site? Are you going to tell me that some ISP decided to block German, and maybe French, media sites? I'll believe it when someone shows me the proof that it was intentional.

Third, I can say that if there was intentional ISP interference, which I doubt, it was not governmental interference. Your statement of "So much for the country where unrestricted freedom of speech is championed at all times." is ludicrous. Especially since our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only to governmental restrictions.

I agree with what has been said about my country and what has been done to civil rights, especially of the detainees at Gitmo. But for you to go from "my friend could not access a German website during the Iraq war" to "so much for freedom of speech," is beneath you. You are better than that.

[fuldstændigamok]

No, no he isnt. He s FAR WORSE than that. He s a kraut.

[Morfin]

Shut up Mr. Franceman!

[Stax]

Stax weasels out of it by saying that "he disagrees" with those policies, like that somehow makes a difference. Well, they're the policies of the governments you elect, so who gives a fuck what you think? I'm sure that there are people in Germany who disagree with this particular law, but the majority doesn't, and elects people who will enforce it.

Hey lets keep on ignoring the fact that all Stax ever did was voice his opinion of a law, wooooooo. That makes your posts sound way cooler.


Yeah, but his serves as an example. If you deny the Holocaust, stay the fuck out of Europe. There are no strong fascist parties in Australia or the US that I'm aware of, so whatever lies and/or hatred they spew over there will likely fal on deaf ears. To you, fascism is a joke, basically. To us, it's the most deadly serious thing in the entire world.

Then your government sucks dick. Terrorism presents a far more active threat and socialism a far wider spread threat. If you are honestly suggesting that your government needs to restrict the very mention of fascist ideas because were they spoken things would collapse in on themselves? Well then, your government sucks.

[Archangel]

Not A LAW.


The basis of what Europe stands for.

[Stax]

Not A LAW.


The basis of what Europe stands for.

Holocaust denial isn't against a particular law?

Seems rather odd he got extradited then.

[Archangel]

Sorry, I should have worded it more precisely.


Not just "a" law, but the law that is at the base of the European Union.

[Archangel]

You're really just arguing for argument's sake, aren't you.

[Axel]

Terrorism presents a far more active threat and socialism a far wider spread threat.Seriously, can you explain me what kind of active threat represent Socialism?

If you are honestly suggesting that your government needs to restrict the very mention of fascist ideas because were they spoken things would collapse in on themselves?Töben didn't just mention the Fascist idea, but actively promoting denial of Holocaust – what is illegal in a whole Europe, not only in Germany. He established Adelaide Institute and rallied all over the world for his cause, including Teheran.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/contents_program.htm (http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/contents_program.htm)

He was already sentenced in Germany for that and later violated parole conditions - that’s why he was detained.

[fuldstændigamok]

Terrorism presents a far more active threat and socialism a far wider spread threat. If you are honestly suggesting that your government needs to restrict the very mention of fascist ideas because were they spoken things would collapse in on themselves? Well then, your government sucks.

Jeez, Stax, are you being serious? Coz, if yes, then you have been effectively brainwashed. Congrats to your country and its infantile paranoia towards compassion and government in any form.
All for one, one for all really is something that pass well over your head, isn t it?

[hishiad]

I'm not sure I get why this has turned into 7 pages of hot steamy arguing. I mean I see why the German's grabbed up this douchebag. It's not just "free speech" when he's tossing out broadcast and all this other shit to go along with it. I mean I can think back to about September/October of 2001 and I'm damn sure if people had been denying 9/11 happened our country/people would have salivated at the thought of tossing them in jail for a few years. I mean we did invoke the "patriot act" for God's sake.


Also...umm...I know Arch was mentioning the EU laws and such and others kept mentioning the UK didn't have the same laws as Germany, but wouldn't the UK be held under the EU laws too?

[Archangel]

I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing 100% with a French commie and somebody from the fucking Balkans.


I guess that the whole idea must have some merit, then.

[Charlatan]

Modern Europe is nothing if not pragmatic. We will do ANYTHING to prevent THAT from happening again.Anything? What about systematically killing every Holocaust denier in Europe? Maybe lethal medical experiments to better understand the mind of a Holocaust denier and figure out how to prevent them from cropping up in the future? And since you're so pragmatic, why not force them into manual labor until they collapse and then gas them?

Pragmatism has been a wonderful excuse for all kinds of atrocities in human history.

In the absence of absolute rights, anything can be justified.

I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing 100% with a French commie and somebody from the fucking Balkans.


I guess that the whole idea must have some merit, then.Yeah, 'cause the more people agree with an idea, the more right it is.

[Archetype]

That is the foundation of democracy.

[Charlatan]

That's one way of looking at it. If it's valid, I guess we should've let Nazi Germany finish the job. After all, it's important to let other countries have their own values, and most of Germany seemed to think mass genocide was a great idea at the time.

[Archetype]

Uh, they did?

[Charlatan]

Well, gee. Hitler did seem like a pretty popular guy.

[Mustard]

The holocaust happened.

[Charlatan]

Archetype, if you're going to claim that the extermination of the Jews was not supported by the majority of Nazi Germany, then let's make it hypothetical. Say the majority of the world thinks it's right to kill you because of your ethnic background. Does that make it right?

Here's the part where, instead of responding to my point, you dismiss it because "it would never happen."

[Archetype]

Well, gee. Hitler did seem like a pretty popular guy.
I'm sure that had nothing to do with the National Socialist Party's promises of fixing the economy, government and everything else. No, it must have been because he proclaimed continuously "Kill the Jews, it's their fault!"

[Ghostrider]

the problem is that we in America seem to think it is OK for certain fat celbritards to say that 911 was government planned, so we expect people who are also douche's to say stupid shit and let is slide. It does seem a little silly that England apprehended this guy and extradited him to Germany for his beliefs, stupid as they might be.

[Archetype]

911 was government planned.

[Mustard]

911 was government planned.
ok, i'll bite...

you got proof of that claim bub?

[Archetype]

Fuck off, I'm busy building my spaceship. I have to pick up Santa Claus, I don't have time for this!

[Mustard]

Fuck off, I'm busy building my spaceship. I have to pick up Santa Claus, I don't have time for this!
You know, if you just wait for the HaleBop comet to come around again, I hear there is supposed to be a spaceship behind that.

All you have to do to get to it is commit suicide.

[Archetype]

Kill myself, huwat do I look like, an idiot? I'm meeting up with them for drinks on Pluto.

[Axel]

Pragmatism has been a wonderful excuse for all kinds of atrocities in human history.

In the absence of absolute rights, anything can be justified.
Lets cry it out loud: atrocities happen in Europe, absolute rights were being…

Wait, what the fuck are absolute rights? An equivalent of absolute freedom?

Does any sane society has it? Individual freedoms and rights are generally limited by freedoms and rights of other members of society.

Exceptions to the freedom of speech in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States)

There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

Do you consider detention and extradition of someone who violated legal norms of community as a ruthless pragmatism? Fine, but do you have any reasonable alternative to that?

Again: could the rest of the world has different values than American ones?

Could we Europeans perceive an organized public campaign aiming to deny the largest scale mass murder as more obscene, insulting and traumatic than - for instance - Janette Jackson’s nip slip, which caused a national trauma in USA?

[Axel]

Archetype, if you're going to claim that the extermination of the Jews was not supported by the majority of Nazi Germany, then let's make it hypothetical. Say the majority of the world thinks it's right to kill you because of your ethnic background. Does that make it right?

Here's the part where, instead of responding to my point, you dismiss it because "it would never happen."
Laws against denial of Holocaust are a part of European legislation, not only German one – it’s not a Germans issue alone, but Europe one. BTW, a denial of holocaust denies a mass slaughter of millions of other Europeans, not only Jews.

If you’d be sentenced because of a child pornography, it wouldn’t be a matter of what the majority of the world thinks about it, but because that's largely illegal.

The fact that ethical norms tend to transform into legal ones is a curse of Democracy. Your solution?

***

BTW, a mass murder of Jews wasn’t ever supported by majority of Germans, regardless that totalitarian propaganda was systematically promoting hatred against them. It wasn’t even legalized by Nazi laws.

[Archangel]

Axel, give it up. These people think in absolutes, and will never be open to the idea that other societies may have other priorities than theirs, or that those priorities may be have any value. Europe should have freedom of speech on everything, Arab countries should see that democracy is the way to go, and everybody should only eat at fast food restaurants, ever. And anyone who drives a car that is shorter than 20' is a homosexual.

To understand the concept of different histories creating different epistemes, which themselves create different paradigms, you first have to have a grasp of history, and respect it as a shaping factor of civilisations, and this is not gonna happen in America for another century or so: The end of WWII is to these guys as the Mongol invasions are to us.

[Archetype]

OK, I have to ask then, I know that there isn't any actual, complete utopia in existence, and by definition, there never will be, but aren't there certain commonalities we should strive for? Don't we have a responsibility to create a better world, and to try and understand just what "better" means? Beyond the purely contextual? Or is progression relative?

Maybe I'm being a bit vague, but isn't there something that ties together acts that are essentially good?

[Archangel]

No.


Perception is shaped almost exclusively by history, both on a personal and a regional/national level; and since everyone's history is different, everyone's set of values will be different, as well.
If you have been the victim of a crime, your attitudes towards criminals and law enforcement might be different than if you haven't. If your people have experienced almost total annihilation, national defence might be higher on your budget list. And if you have seen your entire continent in ashes due to war -thrice in 150 years - your priorities might be different than those to whom war is mainly an export product.

I make an effort to understand how the American Constitution, and the values, norms and priorities that stem from it, are a result of America's history, and I respect it for it. I can also see, by looking at history, how trying to establish democracy in the Arab world is a fool's errand until an Arab thinker declares democracy to be a logical consequence of God's will, just as America's founding fathers did.

For example: Freedom of religion is by necessity an absolute good in America, which was in large part settled by small Christian sects which wanted to escape religious prosecution and live their lives in peace. Therefore, one of the principles of America is that every faith should be treated fairly and equally, no matter how small or ludicrous. Here, we had a little fracas called the Thirty Years War, not to mention a 1200-year primacy of Rome, which makes us look at splinter groups rather differently, which in turn is the reason that we have no problem designating, say, scientology a ridiculous bunch of American kooks, rather than an actual religious group. I understand this, and accept and respect how every side handles its business. Personally, I think that the Mormons are a bunch of lunatics (even though a close friend of mine graduated from BYU), but I would never ask Americans why they didn't just ban those people, because I know that even considering such a thing would run counter to everything America stands for.

Stax and Charlatan, however, do not care about how other nations think, because they can't see why or how anyone would think differently than America. They don't care about how their history has defined their perceptions. To them, American principles and perceptions are the only ones that count - nay, have a reason to exist - and everyone else should realise the obvious and manifest superiority of those principles, even if history makes them utterly incompatible to your situation. They believe in universal values, because they cannot comprehend that other people may have values different from theirs, or why. This has got nothing to do with patriotism: It's simply a result of the solipsistic world-view that many Americans subscribe to, not having to come into contact with other paradigms their entire lives.

[Archangel]

Because it's so true, and so applicable.

The chief city in this district is Sais - the home of King Amasis - the founder of which, as they say, was a goddess whose Egyptian name is Neith, and in Greek, as they assert, Athena. These people profess to be great lovers of Athens and in a measure akin to our people here.
And Solon said that when he travelled there he was held in great esteem amongst them; moreover, when he was questioning such of their priests as were most versed in ancient lore about their ancient history, he discovered that neither he himself, nor any other Greek, knew anything at all, one might say, about such matters.
And, on one occasion, when he wished to draw them on to discourse on ancient history, he attempted to tell them the most ancient of our traditions, concerning Phoroneus, who was said to he the first man and Niohe; and he went on to tell the legend about Deucalion and Pyrra after the flood and how they survived it, and to give the genealogy of their descendants; and by recounting the number of years occupied by the events mentioned he tried to calculate the periods of time.
Whereupon one of the priests, a prodigiously old man, said: "Oh Solon. Solon. You Greeks are always children - there is not such a thing as an old Greek."
And on hearing this he asked: "What mean you by this saying?"
And the priest replied: "You are young in soul, every one of you. For therein you possess not a single belief that is ancient and derived from old tradition, nor yet one science that is hoary with age."



[...]


"Hence it is, for these reasons, that what is here preserved is reckoned to be the most ancient; the truth being that in every place where there is no excessive heat or cold to prevent it, there always exists some human stock, now more, now less in number. And if any event has occurred that is noble or great or in any way conspicuous, whether it be in your country or in ours or in some other place of which we know by report, all such events are recorded from of old and preserved here in our temples; whereas your people and the others are but newly equipped, every time, with letters and all such arts as civilised States require; and when, after the usual interval of years, like a plague, the flood from heaven comes sweeping down afresh upon your people, it leaves none of you but the unlettered and the uncultured, so that you become young as ever, with no knowledge of all that happened in old times in this land or in your own. Certainly the genealogies which you related just now, Solon, concerning the peoples of your country, are little better than children's tales [...]"

[freegood]

Actually, I don't even think the US has an unconditional right to free speech, which I guess somebody already mentioned. I'd go so far as to say there is no such thing as free speech, anywhere. It's simply a matter of who's controlling the collective opinion.

The fundamental difference of this topic is that Americans believe they can police hate speech their own (boycotts, ridicule, civil action) while Euros think it's acceptable for the government to police hate speech for them.

[Archangel]

It's because we don't think that people in governments are retards, and don't vote for them in order to confirm that belief.


But then, until not so long ago, your banks were laughing at ours because ours were so burdened with government regulations...

[Archetype]

Because it's so true, and so applicable.
...wasn't Plato an idealist?

[Axel]

The fundamental difference of this topic is that Americans believe they can police hate speech their own (boycotts, ridicule, civil action) while Euros think it's acceptable for the government to police hate speech for them.Can somebody explain me what happen with words ****** and **** after I type them here?

Again, do you really believe that there are no legal exceptions to the freedom of speech in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States)?

[Archangel]

They didn't have idealists back then.

[Stax]

Can somebody explain me what happen with words ****** and **** after I type them here?

Again, do you really believe that there are no legal exceptions to the freedom of speech in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States)?

The government does not tell people it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. American speech is obviously still limited (most notably, as discussed earlier in this thread, in practical ways like not yelling fire in a crowded theater, and some less practical like obscenity) but it is not the same.

[Pax Britannia]

The whole freedom of speech thing has been on my mind for a while now. There were some pretty vicious protests by Muslims recently and they held signs saying:
"death to the queen"
"Islam is the future of Britain"
"be-head the infedels"

These people all wore scarfs obscuring their faces because they were obviously afraid of being identified by security services or arrested. However this protest was allowed to continue un-interrupted. A protest which essentially says "We reject the elected government of the united kingdom, we wish death upon the soverign and we want to kill all none Muslims (96% of the pop)" yet it was allowed to continue.

However when the BNP (British Nazi's) holds a protest against asylum seekers getting priority in state housing they are mercilessly charged with riot police and horses.

What the hell is going on here people? Is it that Britain is stuck between the EU policy of limiting free speech and the absolute american brand of saying anything you want? I cant speak for the rest of Europe but it seems to me right now freedom of speech is undergoing serious damage in Britain.

[Stax]

The whole freedom of speech thing has been on my mind for a while now. There were some pretty vicious protests by Muslims recently and they held signs saying:
"death to the queen"
"Islam is the future of Britain"
"be-head the infedels"

These people all wore scarfs obscuring their faces because they were obviously afraid of being identified by security services or arrested. However this protest was allowed to continue un-interrupted. A protest which essentially says "We reject the elected government of the united kingdom, we wish death upon the soverign and we want to kill all none Muslims (96% of the pop)" yet it was allowed to continue.

However when the BNP (British Nazi's) holds a protest against asylum seekers getting priority in state housing they are mercilessly charged with riot police and horses.

What the hell is going on here people? Is it that Britain is stuck between the EU policy of limiting free speech and the absolute american brand of saying anything you want? I cant speak for the rest of Europe but it seems to me right now freedom of speech is undergoing serious damage in Britain.

What's particularly odd about that is (I don't know British court history, but going by US cases which have some logic to them) the idea of "clear and present danger" is a common theme in them as something government can regulate, and I'd imagine some angry Muslims actively advocating beheading people present at least MORE of a clear and present danger than some random Nazis whining about shit they'll never get (even if you say neither is a clear and present threat, the Muslim protesters sound at least moreso).

[Archangel]

Yeah, because no one ever made it clear to you that fascist parties are a part of the ruling coalitions in several European countries...

[Pax Britannia]

What's particularly odd about that is (I don't know British court history, but going by US cases which have some logic to them) the idea of "clear and present danger" is a common theme in them as something government can regulate, and I'd imagine some angry Muslims actively advocating beheading people present at least MORE of a clear and present danger than some random Nazis whining about shit they'll never get (even if you say neither is a clear and present threat, the Muslim protesters sound at least moreso).

Maybe we'll come down as hard on the Muslim protestors once they try and kill every non-Muslim in Europe. Personally I would like to shut them down before it gets that far.

However as history has shown people learn very slowly. We're still fighting the last war.

[Stax]

Yeah, because no one ever made it clear to you that fascist parties are a part of the ruling coalitions in several European countries...

So wait, Arch, hater of all things Muslim, thinks that some Nazis protesting about something they disagree with are more dangerous than Muslims hiding their identities preaching murder and the violent overthrow of the government?

[kid_vidrio]

i just don't see muslims as a threat.
islam, maybe. that's a big maybe
but muslims? not so much.

[Archangel]

So wait, Arch, hater of all things Muslim, thinks that some Nazis protesting about something they disagree with are more dangerous than Muslims hiding their identities preaching murder and the violent overthrow of the government?

Show me a European country where jihadists are a part of the executi...

Wait, I said all this already.

[Stax]

Show me a European country where jihadists are a part of the executi...

Wait, I said all this already.

Yep, and it didn't answer the question. Because fascists getting elected through democratic processes are not the same as Nazis marching through the streets. The question is danger now, not what Europe feels embarressed about from 50 years ago. This is, to rehash, why I kept bringing up hate crimes. The US has hate crimes laws because we were ashamed of our racial history, but many understand they are pretty stupid things at this point. Europe being ashamed of it's HISTORY doesn't give them some innate right to restrict speech 50 years in the future.

[Pax Britannia]

It's the hypocrisy that gets to me. We have Muslim clerics in England openly denying the holocaust and the authorities turn a blind eye, as if holocaust denial is to be expect of even the most moderate Muslim. We even have some schools in London contemplating dropping the Holocaust from history lesson because it offends Muslim students who are taught it never happened.

So all that is fine.

However if a white german denies the holocaust he is hunted down and imprisoned.

Come on people! Both are threats to the EU's vision of socialism and universal human bliss. Let's go after all these hate mongers.

[Archangel]

Not here. The one chance we have of nailing the jihadists is their anti-semitic rhetoric. Because as much as the left may be in love with the Muslims, it's just as easy for them to get browbeaten into hating everything nazi.

And while the left dithers on whether they love Abdullah more than they hate Adolf, German constitutional courts can outlaw terrorist rhetoric on the basis of it being anti-semitic. And both ways, Europe wins.

[Claydon]

Not here. The one chance we have of nailing the jihadists is their anti-semitic rhetoric. Because as much as the left may be in love with the Muslims, it's just as easy for them to get browbeaten into hating everything nazi.

And while the left dithers on whether they love Abdullah more than they hate Adolf, German constitutional courts can outlaw terrorist rhetoric on the basis of it being anti-semitic.

It does not seem to be working, lest we forget the Hamburg cell?

[kid_vidrio]

So....what's going on here?

[Pax Britannia]

Not here. The one chance we have of nailing the jihadists is their anti-semitic rhetoric. Because as much as the left may be in love with the Muslims, it's just as easy for them to get browbeaten into hating everything nazi.

And while the left dithers on whether they love Abdullah more than they hate Adolf, German constitutional courts can outlaw terrorist rhetoric on the basis of it being anti-semitic. And both ways, Europe wins.

I hope it works in Germany, I really do. Because in Britain the left isnt crippled with holocaust guilt. In fact its very trendy to be anti-Israel amongst the liberal media elite. Just look at the BBC's coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It doesnt seem to register with them that if the people they protected had their way there would be no democracy, no gay rights, no religious freedoms. Only Islam, the millennia old death cult of a long dead arab general.

It's a perfect storm of hate over in South East England. The most extreme Muslims have found the most unlikely of allies in the liberal elite who it seems are quite literally willing to die so that Muslims have their right to hate.

[Claydon]

I simply cannot understand how Europe allows itself to become awash with these fools (radical muslims). Germany, I can kind of understand, given Germany's history, if anyone attempts to do anything about this problem you will hear the cries of "NEVER AGAIN, THEY ARE INNOCENT" etc etc etc.

But England?! What the hell, this is the island nation that held off the German Air Force, and at one time ruled 1/4 of the land mass of the earth. The country to which 30% of the world's population was under her rule, and now this?!

Sad...just sad.

[Axel]

Wait, I'm getting all confused now. You'll have to tell me which of those are bad guys: mooslims, nazis or jews?

International Conference
Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision
Tehran, 11-12 December 2006


The Alleged Murder Weapon: Homicidal Gas Chambers
Dr Fredrick Töben - Adelaide Institute, Australia


***

1. Words of Thanks

Honourable Attendees

With deep gratitude I thank the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for making all this here possible. It is the first time in Revisionist history that a truly international ‘Holocaust’ conference has been held where general and specific focus is on the claim that during World War Two the Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz.

I thank the Iranian people for having brought forth a leadership that is fearless of Jewish pressure, a leadership that courageously sets out to clarify fundamental human values lost in most of the western ‘democratic and free world’ where such have been replaced by the outgrowth of international predatory capitalism - excessive materialistic consumer hedonism and militarism.


***
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/FT_talk.htm

[Pax Britannia]

Wait, I'm getting all confused now. You'll have to tell me which of those are bad guys: mooslims, nazis or jews?

Radical Islamists
Neo-Nazis

There ya go.

[Claydon]

all of the above?

[Axel]

Radical Islamists
Neo-Nazis

There ya go.I’m still a bit confused.

It seems that a large part of guys that stand against the violation unlimited freedom of speech in this thread, have been in favor of nuking Iran for organizing a “Holocaust Denial” conference in Teheran not so long ago?

[Phil Theehor]

I am going to agree with Stax and Arch on this one.

Stax, you and I share the same opinion. I'm a libertarian. I, too, think that putting a muzzle on a douchebag like Freddy Toben is retarded. Backwards. Caveman-like. You have argued that opinion beautifully.

However, Arch is 100% right when he says that we can't properly judge how they rule their country. The part of us not having lived there is only partly right.

The bottom line is that we are wired to think that way. It is a core value. Their core values are different. Fuck, they like soccer (which, in the U.S., is primarily a girl's sport-- all that flopping and kicking). But, I digress...

I hate to trot out the Freshman Poly Sci-- but here it goes. 90% of all African nations (or something like that) don't even have a word for democracy. We can't expect to explain democracy to them and have them say, "Awesome, let's give that a go". Would never happen. It's the same case here. To parrot Arch, anti-Nazism is a now a core German value. We can't expect to say to them "Hey, we just let our nutjobs blabber away and people (mostly) laugh at them" and have them respond "You Yanks might be on to something there."

All of the shots fired at us by the Europeans about nipplegate, et al, are fair. But that, friends, is changing. Our generation is far less ______-phobic than previous. Providing we do a decent job of spreading the word, the cavemen here won't shit themselves the next time a nipple (gasp!) finds its way on the air. We're getting there.

That said, I'm surprised that none of the Euros have brought up McCarthyism to this point. We did have a similar period ourselves and it wasn't that long ago. The parallels are there, kids. We had a powerful elected official conducting a national witch hunt to root out communist sympathizers. Eventually, we realized that he was an asshole and stopped following. But we did stand by and let it happen for a long time. We let him ruin many lives.

Why? Because we were fucking afraid of communists. Kids checked under their beds at night to make sure that there were no commies there ready to pounce once they slept. And we went along even though the commies never really accomplished anything here. Put this in context, how would our laws look today if the commies did take power in the 50's and do lots of bad shit to millions of people?

[Archangel]

*tips hat*

[Archangel]

And regarding Axel's post: The second you hear somebody say "European Jewry", you can pretty much be certain that you're dealing with a fucking arsehole.

[Archangel]

If you honestly want to understand what post-war Germany is about, nobody has ever said it better than former president Richard von Weizsäcker, on the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe. This was the speech that from a German side, made our neighbours understand that it was our sacred duty never to be a threat to them again; put simply, German re-unification couldn't have happened without it. I've posted it once or twice before on the old GMF; but hey, my old man wrote it, so I'm just gonna post it again here.

Hopefully, this will make things a little bit clearer.



Many nations are today commemorating the date on which World War II ended in Europe. Every nation is doing so with different feelings, depending on its fate. Be it victory or defeat, liberation from injustice and alien rule or transition to new dependence, division, new alliances, vast shifts of power–May 8, 1945, is a date of decisive historical importance for Europe.

We Germans are commemorating that date amongst ourselves, as is indeed necessary. We must find our own standards. We are not assisted in this task if we or others spare our feelings. We need and we have the strength to look truth straight in the eye–without embellishment and without distortion.

For us, the 8th of May is above all a date to remember what people had to suffer. It is also a date to reflect on the course taken by our history. The greater honesty we show in commemorating this day, the freer we are to face the consequences with due responsibility. For us Germans, May 8 is not a day of celebration. Those who actually witnessed that day in 1945 think back on highly personal and hence highly different experiences. Some returned home, others lost their homes. Some were liberated, while for others it was the start of captivity. Many were simply grateful that the bombing at night and fear had passed and that they had survived. Others felt first and foremost grief at the complete defeat suffered by their country. Some Germans felt bitterness about their shattered illusions, while others were grateful for the gift of a new start.

It was difficult to find one's bearings straightaway. Uncertainty prevailed throughout the country. The military capitulation was unconditional, placing our destiny in the hands of our enemies. The past had been terrible, especially for many of those enemies, too. Would they not make us pay many times over for what we had done to them? Most Germans had believed that they were fighting and suffering for the good of their country. And now it turned out that their efforts were not only in vain and futile, but had served the inhuman goals of a criminal regime. The feelings of most people were those of exhaustion, despair and new anxiety. Had one's next of kin survived? Did a new start from those ruins make sense at all? Looking back, they saw the dark abyss of the past and, looking forward, they saw an uncertain, dark future.

Yet with every day something became clearer, and this must be stated on behalf of all of us today: The 8th of May was a day of liberation. It liberated all of us from the inhumanity and tyranny of the National Socialist regime.

Nobody will, because of that liberation, forget the grave suffering that only started for many people on May 8. But we must not regard the end of the war as the cause of flight, expulsion and deprivation of freedom. The cause goes back to the start of the tyranny that brought about war. We must not separate May 8, 1945, from January 30, 1933.

There is truly no reason for us today to participate in victory celebrations. But there is every reason for us to perceive May 8, 1945, as the end of an aberration in German history, an end bearing seeds of hope for a better future.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


II

May 8 is a day of remembrance. Remembering means recalling an occurrence honestly and undistortedly so that it becomes a part of our very beings. This places high demands on our truthfulness.

Today we mourn all the dead of the war and the tyranny. In particular we commemorate the six million Jews who were murdered in German concentration camps. We commemorate all nations who suffered in the war, especially the countless citizens of the Soviet Union and Poland who lost their lives. As Germans, we mourn our own compatriots who perished as soldiers, during air raids at home, in captivity or during expulsion. We commemorate the Sinti and Romany Gypsies, the homosexuals and the mentally ill who were killed, as well as the people who had to die for their religious or political beliefs. We commemorate the hostages who were executed. We recall the victims of the resistance movements in all the countries occupied by us. As Germans, we pay homage to the victims of the German resistance–among the public, the military, the churches, the workers and trade unions, and the Communists. We commemorate those who did not actively resist, but preferred to die instead of violating their consciences.

Alongside the endless army of the dead, mountains of human suffering arise–grief over the dead, suffering from injury or crippling or barbarous compulsory sterilization, suffering during the air raids, during flight and expulsion, suffering because of rape and pillage, forced labor, injustice and torture, hunger and hardship, suffering because of fear of arrest and death, grief at the loss of everything which one had wrongly believed in and worked for. Today we sorrowfully recall all this human suffering.

Perhaps the greatest burden was borne by the women of all nations. Their suffering, renunciation and silent strength are all too easily forgotten by history. Filled with fear, they worked, bore human life and protected it. They mourned their fallen fathers and sons, husbands, brothers and friends. In the years of darkness, they ensured that the light of humanity was not extinguished. After the war, with no prospect of a secure future, women everywhere were the first to set about building homes again, the "rubble women" in Berlin and elsewhere. When the men who had survived returned, women had to take a back seat again. Because of the war, many women were left alone and spent their lives in solitude. Yet it is first and foremost thanks to the women that nations did not disintegrate spiritually on account of the destruction, devastation, atrocities and inhumanity and that they gradually regained their foothold after the war.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


III

At the root of the tyranny was Hitler's immeasurable hatred against our Jewish compatriots. Hitler had never concealed this hatred from the public, but made the entire nation a tool of it. Only a day before his death, on April 30, 1945, he concluded his so-called will with the words: "Above all, I call upon the leaders of the nation and their followers to observe painstakingly the race laws and to oppose ruthlessly the poisoners of all nations: international Jewry." Hardly any country has in its history always remained free from blame for war or violence. The genocide of the Jews is, however, unparalleled in history.

The perpetration of this crime was in the hands of a few people. It was concealed from the eyes of the public, but every German was able to experience what his Jewish compatriots had to suffer, ranging from plain apathy and hidden intolerance to outright hatred. Who could remain unsuspecting after the burning of the synagogues, the plundering, the stigmatization with the Star of David, the deprivation of rights, the ceaseless violation of human dignity? Whoever opened his eyes and ears and sought information could not fail to notice that Jews were being deported. The nature and scope of the destruction may have exceeded human imagination, but in reality there was, apart from the crime itself, the attempt by too many people, including those of my generation, who were young and were not involved in planning the events and carrying them out, not to take note of what was happening. There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything.

There is no such thing as the guilt or innocence of an entire nation. Guilt is, like innocence, not collective, but personal. There is discovered or concealed individual guilt. There is guilt which people acknowledge or deny. Everyone who directly experienced that era should today quietly ask himself about his involvement then.

The vast majority of today's population were either children then or had not been born. They cannot profess a guilt of their own for crimes that they did not commit. No discerning person can expect them to wear a penitential robe simply because they are Germans. But their forefathers have left them a grave legacy. All of us, whether guilty or not, whether old or young, must accept the past. We are all affected by its consequences and liable for it. The young and old generations must and can help each other to understand why it is vital to keep alive the memories. It is not a case of coming to terms with the past. That is not possible. It cannot be subsequently modified or made not to have happened. However, anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present. Whoever refuses to remember the inhumanity is prone to new risks of infection.

The Jewish nation remembers and will always remember. We seek reconciliation. Precisely for this reason we must understand that there can be no reconciliation without remembrance. The experience of millionfold death is part of the very being of every Jew in the world, not only because people cannot forget such atrocities, but also because remembrance is part of the Jewish faith.

"Seeking to forget makes exile all the longer. The secret of redemption lies in remembrance." This oft-quoted Jewish adage surely expresses the idea that faith in God is faith in the work of God in history. Remembrance is experience of the work of God in history. It is the source of faith in redemption. This experience creates hope, creates faith in redemption, in reunification of the divided, in reconciliation. Whoever forgets this experience loses his faith.

If we for our part sought to forget what has occurred, instead of remembering it, this would not only he inhuman. We would also impinge upon the faith of the Jews who survived and destroy the basis of reconciliation. We must erect a memorial to thoughts and feelings in our own hearts.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IV

The 8th of May marks a deep cut not only in German history but in the history of Europe as a whole. The European civil war had come to an end, the old world of Europe lay in ruins. "Europe had fought itself to a standstill" (M. Sturmer). The meeting of American and Soviet Russian soldiers on the Elbe became a symbol for the temporary end of a European era.

True, all this was deeply rooted in history. For a century Europe had suffered under the clash of extreme nationalistic aspirations. At the end of the First World War peace treaties were signed but they lacked the power to foster peace. Once more nationalistic passions flared up and were fanned by the distress of the people at that time.

Along the road to disaster Hitler became the driving force. He whipped up and exploited mass hysteria. A weak democracy was incapable of stopping him. And even the powers of Western Europe–in Churchill's judgment unsuspecting but not without guilt–contributed through their weakness to this fateful trend. After the First World War America had withdrawn and in the thirties had no influence on Europe.

Hitler wanted to dominate Europe and to do so through war. Re looked for and found an excuse in Poland. On May 23, 1939, he told the German generals: "No further successes can be gained without bloodshed.... Danzig is not the objective. Our aim is to extend our Lebensraum in the East and safeguard food supplies... so there is no question of sparing Poland. And there remains the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity... the object is to deliver the enemy a blow, or the annihilating blow, at the start. In this, law, injustice or treaties do not matter."

On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. The secret supplementary protocol made provision for the impending partition of Poland. That pact was made to give Hitler an opportunity to invade Poland. The Soviet leaders at the time were fully aware of this. And all who saw realized that the implications of the German-Soviet pact were invasion of Poland and hence the Second World War.

That does not mitigate Germany's responsibility for the start of the Second World War. The Soviet Union was prepared for other nations to fight one another so that it could have a share of the spoils. The initiative for the war, however, came from Germany, not from the Soviet Union. It was Hitler who resorted to the use of force. The outbreak of the Second World War remains linked with the name of Germany.

In the course of that war the Nazi regime tormented and defiled many nations. At the end of it all only one nation remained to be tormented, enslaved and defiled: the German nation. Time and again Hitler had declared that if the German nation was not capable of winning the war it should be left to perish. The other nations first became victims of a war started by Germany before we became the victims of our own war.

The division of Germany into zones began on May 8. In the meantime the Soviet Union had taken control in all countries of Eastern and South Eastern Europe that had been occupied by Germany during the war. All of them, with the exception of Greece, became socialist states. The division of Europe into two different political systems took its course. True, it was the postwar developments which cemented that division, but without the war started by Hitler it would not have happened at all. That is what first comes to the minds of the nations concerned when they recall the war unleashed by the German leaders. And we think of that too when we ponder the division of our own country and the loss of huge sections of German territory. In a sermon in East Berlin commemorating the 8th of May, Cardinal Meissner said: "the pathetic result of sin is always division."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


V

The arbitrariness of destruction continued to be felt in the arbitrary distribution of burdens. There were innocent people who were persecuted and guilty ones who got away. Some were lucky to be able to begin life all over again at home in familiar surroundings. Others were expelled from the lands of their fathers. We in what was to become the Federal Republic of Germany were given the priceless opportunity to live in freedom. Many millions of our countrymen have been denied that opportunity to this day.

Learning to accept mentally this arbitrary allocation of fate was the first task, alongside the material task of rebuilding the country. That had to be the test of the human strength to recognize the burdens of others, to help bear them over time, not to forget them. It had to be the test of our ability to work for peace, of our willingness to foster the spirit of reconciliation both at home and in our external relations, an ability and a readiness which not only others expected of us but which we most of all demanded of ourselves.

We cannot commemorate the 8th of May without being conscious of the great effort required on the part of our former enemies to set out on the road of reconciliation with us. Can we really place ourselves in the position of relatives of the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto or of the Lidice massacre? And how hard must it have been for the citizens of Rotterdam or London to support the rebuilding of our country from where the bombs came which not long before had been dropped on their cities? To be able to do so they had gradually to gain the assurance that the Germans would not again try to make good their defeat by use of force.

In our country the biggest sacrifice was demanded of those who had been driven out of their homeland. They were to experience suffering and injustice long after the 8th of May. Those of us who were born here often do not have the imagination or the open heart with which to grasp the real meaning of their harsh fate.

But soon there were great signs of readiness to help. Many millions of refugees and expellees were taken in who over the years were able to strike new roots. Their children and grandchildren have in many different ways formed a loving attachment to the culture and the homeland of their ancestors. That is a great treasure in their lives. But they themselves have found a new home where they are growing up and integrating with the local people of the same age, sharing their dialect and their customs. Their young life is proof of their ability to be at peace with themselves. Their grandparents or parents were once driven out. They themselves, however, are now at home.

Very soon and in exemplary fashion the expellees identified themselves with the renunciation of force. That was no passing declaration in the early stages of helplessness but a commitment which has retained its validity. Renouncing the use of force means allowing trust to grow on all sides. It means that a Germany that has regained its strength remains bound by it. The expellees' own homeland has meanwhile become a homeland for others. In many of the old cemeteries in Eastern Europe you will today find more Polish than German graves. The compulsory migration of millions of Germans to the West was followed by the migration of millions of Poles and, in their wake, millions of Russians. These are all people who were not asked, people who suffered injustice, people who became defenseless objects of political events and to whom no compensation for those injustices and no offsetting of claims can make up for what has been done to them.

Renouncing force today means giving them lasting security, unchallenged on political grounds, for their future in the place where fate drove them after the 8th of May and where they have been living in the decades since. It means placing the dictate of understanding above conflicting legal claims. That is the true, the human contribution to a peaceful order in Europe which we can provide.

The new beginning in Europe after 1945 has brought both victory and defeat for the notion of freedom and self-determination. Our aim is to seize the opportunity to draw a line under a long period of European history in which to every country peace seemed conceivable and safe only as a result of its own supremacy, and in which peace meant a period of preparation for the next war.

The peoples of Europe love their homelands. The Germans are no different. Who could trust in a people's love of peace if it were capable of forgetting its homeland? No, love of peace manifests itself precisely in the fact that one does not forget one's homeland and is for that very reason resolved to do everything in one's power to live together with others in lasting peace. An expellee's love for his homeland is in no way revanchism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VI

The last war has aroused a stronger desire for peace in the hearts of men than in times past. The work of the churches in promoting reconciliation met with a tremendous response. The "Aktion Sühnezeichen," a campaign in which young people carry out atonement activity in Poland and Israel, is one example of such practical efforts to promote understanding. Recently, the town of Kleve on the Lower Rhine received loaves of bread from Polish towns as a token of reconciliation and fellowship. The town council sent one of those loaves to a teacher in England because he had discarded his anonymity and written to say that as a member of a bomber crew during the war he had destroyed the church and houses in Kleve and wanted to take part in some gesture of reconciliation. In seeking peace it is a tremendous help if, instead of waiting for the other to come to us, we go towards him, as this man did.

In the wake of the war, old enemies were brought closer together. As early as 1946, the American Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, called in his memorable Stuttgart address for understanding in Europe and for assistance to the German nation on its way to a free and peaceable future. Innumerable Americans assisted us Germans, who had lost the war, with their own private means so as to heal the wounds of war. Thanks to the vision of the Frenchmen Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman and their cooperation with Konrad Adenauer, the traditional enmity between the French and Germans was buried forever.

A new will and energy to reconstruct Germany surged through the country. Many an old trench was filled in, religious differences and social strains were defused. People set to work in a spirit of partnership.

There was no "zero hour," but we had the opportunity to make a fresh start. We have used this opportunity as well as we could.

We have put democratic freedom in the place of oppression. Four years after the end of the war, on this May 8, in 1949, the Parliamentary Council adopted our Basic Law. Transcending party differences, the democrats on the council gave their answer to war and tyranny in Article 1 of our constitution: "The German people acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of any community, of peace and of justice in the world." This further significance of May 8 should also be remembered today.

The Federal Republic of Germany has become an internationally respected state. It is one of the most highly developed industrial countries in the world. It knows that its economic strength commits it to share responsibility for the struggle against hunger and need in the world and for social adjustment between nations. For 40 years we have been living in peace and freedom, to which we, through our policy in union with the free nations of the Atlantic alliance and the European Community, have ourselves rendered a major contribution. The freedom of the individual has never received better protection in Germany than it does today. A comprehensive system of social welfare that can stand comparison with any other ensures the subsistence of the population. Whereas at the end of the war many Germans tried to hide their passports or to exchange them for another one, German nationality today is highly valued.

We certainly have no reason to be arrogant and self-righteous. But we may look back with gratitude on our development over these 40 years, if we use the memory of our own history as a guideline for our future behavior.

If we remember that mentally disturbed persons were put to death in the Third Reich, we will see care of people with psychiatric disorders as our own responsibility.
If we remember how people persecuted on grounds of race, religion and politics and threatened with certain death often stood before the closed borders with other countries, we shall not close the door today on those who are genuinely persecuted and seek protection with us.
If we reflect on the penalties for free thinking under the dictatorship, we will protect the freedom of every idea and every criticism, however much it may be directed against ourselves.
Whoever criticizes the situation in the Middle East should think of the fate to which Germans condemned their Jewish fellow human beings, a fate that led to the establishment of the state of Israel under conditions which continue to burden people in that region even today.
If we think of what our Eastern neighbors had to suffer during the war, we will find it easier to understand that accommodation and peaceful neighborly relations with these countries remain central tasks of German foreign policy. It is important that both sides remember and that both sides respect each other.
Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, declared that it was not the intention of the Soviet leaders at the 40th anniversary of the end of the war to stir up anti-German feelings. The Soviet Union, he said, was committed to friendship between nations. Particularly if we have doubts about Soviet contributions to understanding between East and West and about respect for human rights in all parts of Europe, we must not ignore this signal from Moscow. We seek friendship with the peoples of the Soviet Union.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VIII

Forty years after the end of the war, the German nation remains divided.

At a commemorative service in the Church of the Holy Cross in Dresden held in February of this year, Bishop Hempel said: "It is a burden and a scourge that two German states have emerged with their harsh border. The very multitude of borders is a burden and a scourge. Weapons are a burden."

Recently in Baltimore in the United States, an exhibition on "Jews in Germany" was opened. The ambassadors of both German states accepted the invitation to attend. The host, the President of the Johns Hopkins University, welcomed them together. He stated that all Germans share the same historical development. Their joint past is a bond that links them. Such a bond, he said, could be a blessing or a problem, but was always a source of hope.

We Germans are one people and one nation. We feel that we belong together because have lived through the same past. We also experienced the 8th of May 1945 as part of the common fate of our nation, which unites us. We feel bound together in our desire for peace. Peace and good neighborly relations with all countries should radiate from the German soil in both states. And no other states should let that soil become a source of danger to peace, either. The people of Germany are united in desiring a peace that encompasses justice and human rights for all peoples, including our own. Reconciliation that transcends boundaries cannot be provided by a walled Europe but only by a continent that removes the divisive elements from its borders. That is the exhortation given us by the end of the Second World War. We are confident that the 8th of May is not the last date in the common history of all Germans.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IX

Many young people have in recent months asked themselves and us why such animated discussions about the past have arisen 40 years after the end of the war. Why are they more animated than after 25 or 30 years? What is the inherent necessity of this development?

It is not easy to answer such questions. But we should not seek the reasons primarily in external influences. In the life span of men and in the destiny of nations, 40 years play a great role. Permit me at this point to return again to the Old Testament, which contains deep insights for every person, irrespective of his own faith. There, 40 years frequently play a vital part. The Israelites were to remain in the desert for 40 years before a new stage in their history began with their arrival in the Promised Land. 40 years were required for a complete transfer of responsibility from the generation of the fathers.

Elsewhere, too (in the Book of Judges), it is described how often the memory of experienced assistance and rescue lasted only for 40 years. When their memory faded, tranquillity was at an end. Forty years invariably constitute a significant time span. Man perceives them as the end of a dark age bringing hope for a new and prosperous future, or as the onset of danger that the past might be forgotten and a warning of the consequences. It is worth reflecting on both of these perceptions.

In our country, a new generation has grown up to assume political responsibility. Our young people are not responsible for what happened over 40 years ago. But they are responsible for the historical consequences.

We in the older generation owe to young people not the fulfillment of dreams but honesty. We must help younger people to understand why it is vital to keep memories alive. We want to help them to accept historical truth soberly, not one-sidedly, without taking refuge in utopian doctrines, but also without moral arrogance. From our own history we learn what man is capable of. For that reason we must not imagine that we are quite different and have become better. There is no ultimately achievable moral perfection. We have learned as human beings, and as human beings we remain in danger. But we have the strength to overcome such danger again and again.

Hitler's constant approach was to stir up prejudices, enmity and hatred. What is asked of young people today is this: do not let yourselves be forced into enmity and hatred of other people, of Russians or Americans, Jews or Turks, of alternatives or conservatives, blacks or whites.

Let us honor freedom.

Let us work for peace.

Let us respect the rule of law.

Let us be true to our own conception of justice.

On this 8th of May, let us face up as well as we can to the truth.

[Madrum]

As an Australian, let me say first off, this bloke is a dickhead, personally before he was arrested, I had never heard of him, nor do I agree with him. His views seem rather asinine to me as I'm sure they do to the majority of people both downunder and worldwide.

I agree Germany has a right to their own laws. If you agree to that you will have to agree that Australia has a right to it's own laws. For that matter every country has a right to their own laws.

This bloke was ordered by Australian Courts to take the website off as it was deemed offensive, (My personal opinion - rightly so.), I have not heard anyone say he hasn't. Should any further prosecution been deemed then I'm sure they would have been instituted under Australian Law. We have laws of free speech and laws that prohibit certain speech as well (inciting terrorism for example), and expect people 'who come to this country' to adhere to them. The phrase 'who come to this country' being the key. If the material whether it be a book or on a website be deemed offensive then it is ordered to be taken off and any other punitive punishments are dealt with by the Australian Courts.

Germany's laws on this matter are it's own business, and if he had written, made, submitted the material in Germany, then he should be subject to German Law. Or even EU laws if he did it elsewhere in Europe.

However, on the assumption he did it in Adelaide, South Australia, then he is and has been subject to our rules/laws and rights thereof.

Having said that, even though I consider him moronic idiot, to be arrested in the way he has been, is simply wrong and shame on the UK for doing it. If Germany thought they had a chance of geting him from Australia they would have or should have instituted extradition procedures from here and let Australian law of an Australian citizen, consent or deny such request. This seems a strange way for Germany to wave the flag as NOT being facists, rather the exercise appears contradictive in intent, with the UK Government kowtowing behind.

I am sorry an immigrant Australian has written such stupidity about a tragic and horrific time of history, however down here he has that right until deemed otherwise by the Australian Law/Courts.

To me an average Australian, it appears that the UK and German Governments have distrespected our Countries Laws and citizen's rights by acting in this manner and shame on them for that.

In my opinion he should be returned to Australia, if Germany think they have a case, then by all means institute extradition proceedings. Should Germany succeed in those proceedings, then by all means the dickhead is all theirs.

[Archangel]

The guy knows that there is a warrant for his arrest in Germany.

If he doesn't know abou EU treaties regarding arrest and extradition, that's his problem. People from outside the EU need to realise that for all legal intents and purposes, we're basically a single country now, or at least halfway there. If only we could kick the Poles back out...

This has been asked before: If someone who had committed a crime in New York had been apprehended in Pennsylvania, would people complain as much, when it's basically the same thing?

[Archetype]

As a Canadian, let me say first off, I love whiskey. Actually, that's all I have to say.

[Mustard]

As a Canadian, let me say first off, I love whiskey. Actually, that's all I have to say.
Canadian or American? Or Bourbon? Or Scotch?

[Archetype]

Bourbon is American, Rye is Canadian, and then there's Scotch and Irish, yada yada, all of the above.

[Mustard]

As long as you don't like Gin, then we're ok.

[Archangel]

Mr Bombay Sapphire tells you to eat a big fat dick.

[Archangel]

Especially since Oasis's "I'm feelin' supersonic/Give me gin and tonic" might be one of the greatest drinking lyrics ever.

[Mustard]

Mr Bombay Sapphire tells you to eat a big fat dick.
Ever since I got hammered on Tanqueray gin straight up on my 22nd birthday I haven't had a drop since. Not even in any mixed drinks.

NOT ANY EVER!!!

[Archangel]

What kind of retard drinks gin straight up?

[Mustard]

A stupid 22 year old who doesn't know any better...

[Archetype]

I drank gin at my graduation party. Never again.

[Pax Britannia]

Modern Germany?
eijhloJjg50

[Archangel]

Hey, you're the guys with the Shari'a courts.

[Pax Britannia]

If the Muslims want to isolate themselves from society they can go for it.

[Archangel]

Which is all fine and dandy until some Abdullah blows up St Paul's.

[Madrum]

The guy knows that there is a warrant for his arrest in Germany.

If he doesn't know abou EU treaties regarding arrest and extradition, that's his problem. People from outside the EU need to realise that for all legal intents and purposes, we're basically a single country now, or at least halfway there. If only we could kick the Poles back out...

This has been asked before: If someone who had committed a crime in New York had been apprehended in Pennsylvania, would people complain as much, when it's basically the same thing?

A single Country? Well maybe, maybe not, I'm sure there's plenty here that would argue that one way or the other. It's not my point though, he's not a citizen of a member Country of the EU. The dickhead was and is an Australian who was on a transit flight to another Country that is also not a member of the EU. The matter was dealt with under Australian Law. If Germany was so sure of their international rights why didn't they just apply for extradition from here.

From my point of view, the UK's action's (who are also members of the Commonwealth mind) on Germany's behalf is appalling. All under the principle that facism is dead, as I said it all comes across in a contradictive manner and a slap in the face to Australia. Still it does make a good case for the Republican -v- Monarchy movement here in severing ties with the United Kingdom.

Another downside to this incident, is that through the actions of the UK and German authorities, they have managed to turn a nobody with a moronic opinion into a somebody with worldwide publicity. One would be hard pressed to buy this amount of exposure. So I dare say that his little idiotic documentary will be bought by some countries and aired, he will in all probability gain a following of like minded dickheads, write a book, go on the lecture circuit and be paid fodder for some sort of 'counterpoint' television shows, instead of fading away into obscurity as he rightfully deserves.

For the rest, you can keep that Canadian crap :eek:, give me a bottle of Dalwhinnie 29 yr old single malt, Tullamore Dew 12 yr old or Bushmills 16 yr old Irish Whiskey, a bottle of Gentleman Jack or Makers Mark, then pour them all into a large glass add 15 drops of water and serve, I's got class I's do :D. Gin should only be used as aftershave and never ever ever consumed :cool:.

Down here we don't make good whiskey, but we make an awesome rum - Bundaberg Rum - It'll not only put hairs on ones chest, it'll also drop ones balls by an inch and deepen your voice to a gravel tone. And thats just the women. ;)

[Axel]

What’s the big deal? I can’t see any relevant difference between being convicted in Europe or being naturalized Australian.

[Pax Britannia]

Which is all fine and dandy until some Abdullah blows up St Paul's.

Only a matter of time until they start springing up amongst the muslim community in Germany. And I'm sure the european union will be right there to protect them.

[Madrum]

What’s the big deal? I can’t see any relevant difference between being convicted in Europe or being naturalized Australian.

Hahaha, oh axel, you crack me up. :rolleyes:

[Archangel]

It WAS pretty funny, though. Especially since this happened in London.

[Axel]

Hahaha, oh axel, you crack me up. :rolleyes:
Inmate… I mean mate (what a slip), I know you don’t sympathize with Nazism and that your objections are based on general principles exclusively.

Firstly, German-born Friedrich Töben was detained on the territory of a EU member state due to an EU arrest warrant against him. So far it's not sure if he would be extradited at all – what is a regular international legal practice, BTW.

Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Toben should not be extradited, says Liberal Democrat (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/3135276/Holocaust-denier-Dr-Fredrick-Toben-should-not-be-extradited-says-Liberal-Democrat-MP.html)

But even if he would be extradited, he would face allegations in a due process.

Secondly, I have to ask you, what is your statement about Australian citizen being detained on Guantanamo, without being allowed for a due process, without even being formally accused for many years?