|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
so he should get 3 years the man must have been a complete fool to make such a stupid statement.
please note as a new guest i am impressed with this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
HUH????????
Did I miss something?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ahhhh.......
I did......::-)
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
David Irving has a different view of history from many people. He has been accused of anti-semitism in the past. He is litigious. And is now in jail for making some very peculair statements in Austria. It appears he recanted. However TV coverage tonight in the UK shows that this may have been illusory
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for David Irvin, but I have a feeling that the Austrians have been happy for the opportunity to polish their own political image. Austria's recent past is a muddy one and the restitution of stolen Jewish property during the nazi period has been rather half-hearted.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/austria_nazism_01.shtml)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In no way do I want to deny the holocaust. I have visited three Nazi concentration camps, but I find it utter stupidity to pass a law to criminalise those that ignorant enough to deny the holocaust. And this is not only the case in Austria. Such people need to be enlightened, educated, not imprisoned. However, in the final analysis they should be permitted freedom of thought and speech.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel:
>I have visited three Nazi concentration camps, but I find it utter stupidity to pass a law to criminalise those that ignorant enough to deny the holocaust
...
>Such people need to be enlightened, educated, not imprisoned.
Fair enough, but David Irving is not "ignorant". He was (before he ruined his own career) a leading historian. I don't pretend that I have any understanding of the motivation behind his historical revisionism, but surely he is precisely the sort of person who is likely to prey on those who are genuinely ignorant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great place Jack. It makes me smile a lot and Cossie and Deeeej make me laugh.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
History is awash with revisionism; by and large it was written by those who held the reins of power at the time of writing. On the whole, historians should be grateful for this; it provides unlimited opportunity for academic challenges to the accepted view. There are dozens of examples in British history, but a good illustration is Richard III, the last Yorkist King, defeated and killed (by supporters of the Stanley family, which defected to the other side early in the conflict) at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August 1485. The victor, Henry Tudor, became Henry VII, beginning a dynasty which lasted for over a century. Richard had held the throne for only two years, having succeeded his brother Edward IV, although Edward had two young sons. Almost as soon as they took power, the Tudors began to demonise Richard; he was portrayed as an evil hunchback, who had murdered Edward's sons - the well-known tale of the Princes in the Tower - as well as committing pretty well every other sin in the book. The Tudors effectively controlled the media of the day, and their version of events was not seriously challenged for almost 500 years. But, eventually, a challenge came and many others followed. Whilst the truth remains elusive and ambiguous, research has established that the Tudor revisionism was exactly that, not an accurate historical account.
The same phenomenon is evident today. The attempted suppression of additional pictures from Abu Ghraib, known to the Pentagon since the original scandal, was clearly a strategy of damage limitation allowing the matter to be swept under the carpet by prosecuting a handful of junior ranks. Now that we have seen the full extent of the prisoner abuse, can anyone seriously believe that senior officers were unaware of what was happening under their command? I'm not picking on the United States; such tactics are pretty universal. The point is, political forces still effectively control the media, and even today's history is distorted according to political viewpoint.
So why do I regard Irving as an enigma? Well, the man is clearly intelligent; he was, after all a respected historial before he apparently flipped his lid. But, despite his intelligence, he proposed a thesis in the teeth of overwhelmingly strong evidence to the contrary, and he did it at a time when many eye-witnesses were still alive. Furthermore, he did it in a climate in which his views were inevitably doomed to pretty well universal derision - not the normal behaviour of even the more controversial historians. I cannot construct any logical explanation for his actions: hence, to me, he is an enigma!
That said, I must stand shoulder to shoulder with Nigel; jailing someone for expressing an opinion - however repugnant - suggests that humanity has made little progress since the book-burning days of the late medieval Catholic Church. Opinions should be demolished by counter-argument, not by incarceration.
I should make it absolutely clear that I don't support Irving's views at any level. Nevertheless, the oft-heard mantra that the holocaust must never be forgotten seems to me to be entirely counter-productive. It should of course be remembered as a fact of history - as one of many examples of man's inhumanity to man. But it was by no means the first example of genocide, not has it proved to be the last. The only hope for the future is redemption and forgiveness. Despite their recent history - which, given the right combination of circumstances, could have been the history of any other Western European country, including my own - the Germanic people are not devils, nor are the Jewish people angels. If we can't learn to live together - and to acknowledge the imperfections of our own racial groups - many more versions of the holocaust await us. That's why I would argue that it's now time to view it from a historical rather than an emotional standpoint; the former should unite us, but the latter will forever divide us.
Sorry there's no humour in this post, but it's something I feel pretty strongly about!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Im uzuly prity gud at Inglish!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
He may be. But the discussion is surely about the laws, not about the man.
If he had assaulted a child we would deem him "guilty as charged" and throw the key away. What he has done is broken, wilfully, the laws of he land where he is jailed. He has admitted his guilt. He is jailed.
The laws exist in Austria for whatever purpose the Austrian people enacted them. If they are there then they have a right to enforce them.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, your illustration of what the Tudors (well, actually, Henry VII and his ministers) did to Richard III is not the same as what Irving and others are doing concerning the Holocaust.
...a good illustration is Richard III, the last Yorkist King, defeated and killed ... at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August 1485. The victor, Henry Tudor, became Henry VII ... Almost as soon as they took power, the Tudors began to demonise Richard; he was portrayed as an evil hunchback, who had murdered Edward's sons ... as well as committing pretty well every other sin in the book.
All this is true. But Henry Tudor did not claim that Richard III had never existed.
...jailing someone for expressing an opinion - however repugnant - suggests that humanity has made little progress since the book-burning days of the late medieval Catholic Church. Opinions should be demolished by counter-argument, not by incarceration.
I agree wholeheartedly. Is it not strange that whatever it was that Irving said in Austria (and elsewhere) he could have said with absolute impunity in the State of Israel, where there is no law against holocaust deniers. However, as far as I know, Irving has never visited Israel. I wonder why.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'ignorant' was directed at those in general who deny the holocaust, not at David Irvin in particular. I used the word in its basic sense of 'not knowing', not its acquired sense of vulgar or bad mannered. Reports in today's paper say that Irvin has acknowledged the existence of gas chambers, and thereby the holocaust.
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Austrian government in the name of the people enacted those laws. There is a difference. (Compare British involvement in the Iraq war.)
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
…to Holocaust Day this year (27 Jan)? It appeared to be suppressed in case it offended our Muslim 'friends'.
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political correctness EEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKK. the only reason they are our friends is they got the oil. there was an incident here where the city (and asked the citizens) not to fly the american flag on memorial day, cause it might offend our foriegn friends. Just how stupid can we get?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While Im on my soap box. I got a frined in school. He is from Hungary. He speaks reads and writes English exceptionally well. We were in Wally World one day and there were all these signs in Spanish. He looked at me and said. "when I came to this country the first thing I had to do was learn english. I dont remember anybody posting signs in Hungarian. If they dont want to learn English then just make do the best they can.
Ok got that off my chest
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Just a brief response to the comments following my post above -
As I've argued several times before, laws are not justified simply because they exist. I understand WHY the anti-denial laws were enacted, but I believe that the enactment was cynically cosmetic, borne of a political desire to be seen to be doing the right thing. I don't claim acquaintance with the membership of the German or Austrian parliaments, but I imagine that at least a reasonable proportion of that membership is pretty intelligent. That being so, it must have been evident to the lawmakers that it is simply not possible to legislate against ideas; in many ways, prohibiting the public expression of an idea may make it even more attractive. Irving chose to go to Austria; a pretty unwise choice and, once made, a choice which rendered him liable to a prosecution which he knowingly brought upon himself. I have no sympathy for the man, but I do believe that the law is absolutely wrong.
JFR, I chose the example of Richard III simply because it's pretty well known; I didn't intend to suggest that it was a parallel. My only point was that revisionism is pretty well as old as history itself. I'm always conscious that I may be accused of writing a dissertation, so perhaps I didn't expand enough! By implication, however, I sought to make the point that successful revisionism requires political power - at the time he made his claims Irving had no chance of success, so what did he hope to achieve?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
I'm always conscious that I may be accused of writing a dissertation, so perhaps I didn't expand enough!
Cossie, we all know that some lengthy "dissertations" on this Message Board really can be tedious. I have never yet found a lengthy message from you to be tedious. So, as far as I am concerned ... expand away!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... because we're moving away from Irving and his actions, but your thoughts are no less valid for that.
I think you know where I stand on political correctness; it's mindless idiocy beloved of those who lack the ability to think logically!
We have examples of the 'flag' thing in the UK. Quite a few towns and cities in which fancy lighting displays and other events are organised in December now insist on calling the event a 'Winter Festival', on the grounds that the word 'Christmas' might offend members of other faiths. The stupid, STUPID, thing is that my Muslim and Hindu friends all say that their families have happily adopted Christmas as a time for exchanging gifts; they haven't adopted the Christian religion, but they don't have the slightest problem with the word 'Christmas'.
In the same vein, I have often lustily waved the Scottish flag (a red lion rampant on a yellow ground) but that doesn't mean that I support the Scottish National Party; the future of humanity depends on unification rather than separation.
Not sure that I agree completely with your friend, though. There are a lot of Spanish speakers in the South-Western USA, and perhaps they deserve the courtesy of signage in their own language. On the other hand, the proportion of native Hungarians is probably quite small! We probably have more experience of this sort of thing in Europe, where there are a variety of languages. The Spanish and Italians will possibly take out a contract on my life for this, but the three major languages are English, French and German, and throughout most of Europe you can get by with a working knowledge of one of these. Nevertheless if I, as an English (well, strictly Scottish!) tourist, go into a shop in a French holiday resort, I will receive a much more sincere welcome if I try to speak French - however bad my accent and vocabulary may be! I suppose this is simply because I've made an effort and haven't played the part of the arrogant Brit abroad. The same principle is even more valid in countries like Holland or Croatia, where visitors are not generally expected to make an effort with the national language. So, in short, I see nothing wrong in dual language signs where there is a significant number of people for whom English is not the first language. I certainly wouldn't recommend removing French signs in Quebec - that could quite literally be fatal!
I should perhaps mention my un-favourite language - Welsh! So far as I know, there is no-one in Wales who does not speak English, but in a professional capacity I have encountered several Welshmen who have refused to talk to me in English. I do know a little Welsh, but with idiots like that I see no reason to attempt to use it!
To quote Scotland's national poet: 'For a' that and a' that, it's comin' yet for a' that: that man tae man the worrld o'er shall brithers be for a' that!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
