Earnst Zundel

[Argus]

Your right, and that's why I don't think he should be in jail. He posed no threat to a peaceful society, no one cared about what he ranted about anyways.

I did suggest that we remove the criminal provision and make it a type of slander. If a movie star can sue someone for publishing lies that hurt their reputation then a coalition of Jewish groups should be able to sue for slandering Jews by denying the holacaust. This could still result in jail time for contempt of court but only after someone has shown that what he says is not only false but that it also damages others.

Or do you beleive that we should eliminate all laws regarding slander as well?

The laws you speak of generally require that the plaintiff demonstrate how much economic damage he has suffered or is likely to suffer due to the slander. I think the Jews would find it pretty hard to demonstrate an economic loss from some gomer denying the Holocaust.

[Argus]

madmax:A hero to you. A racist jackass to me.

He stood his ground based on what he believed to be true. Most people could be paid off or threatened. For this reason he is a great man.

Or a nut job. A much more likely scenario, imho.

[geoffrey]

Or a nut job. A much more likely scenario, imho.

If we put all the nut jobs in jail, 50% of the posters on this forum would be there.

[kimmy]

Many people are aware of the planned mass executions but will not discuss them because they think the plans are only for dark skinned people. I've known about this since around 1991.

The fake terrorsist attacks are being used to start wars with unco-operative countries that are not yet controlled by private central bankers.

Every controlled country has a network of concentration camps. These can be found where they are conveniently linked by rail and are sometimes built into old railway stations.

uh-huh.

You should go back to finding lima beans that look like Jim Fetzer.

-k

[guyser]

I can buy that. My bias is towards unrestricted free speech unless that speech is proven to be harmful. What you are saying is that Jews cannot make the case that holocaust denial is harmful to them so it should not be restricted. OTOH, I assume that if someone was calling for another holocaust then that would be harmful and therefore could be banned either criminally or civilly.

Free speech is not unrestricted , one cannot yell fire in a theatre.

Basically we need to uphold free speech, in all forms , and take the good with the bad. Words do not hurt peoples , individuals perhaps, but not peoples.

It is called freedom, and freedom to be stupid, say stupid things, lies, and all the rest that comes with it.

As for being a teacher, free speech does not include the classroom , and Ernst would would only have to say it once and he would be out on his ear.

Would the Teachers Feds defend him. Probably , but in such a way to guarantee they lose. They would never want to be seen to aggressively defend such garbage. Take a look at the teacer ins Alta that tried this many years ago. Run out of town , and never heard from again. (IIRC)

[PolyNewbie]

I don't understand how these holocaust deniers are hurting the Jews - even if their close relative died why do they are what someone else thinks about the history of their people. I think the government put a dark cloud over them by enacting the denier laws and the issue would have ended a long time ago.

[madmax]

If we put all the nut jobs in jail, 50% of the posters on this forum would be there.

ROFLOL

[PolyNewbie]

If we put all the nut jobs in jail, 50% of the posters on this forum would be there.

Thats true. But you would soon be next.

[guyser]

I don't understand how these holocaust deniers are hurting the Jews - even if their close relative died why do they are what someone else thinks about the history of their people. I think the government put a dark cloud over them by enacting the denier laws and the issue would have ended a long time ago.

Posters on this site call you names, denigrate your obvious delusional ideas , and generally laugh ,all at your expense. And you answer with vitriol.You engage in name calling etc etc.

Yet...........you wonder why some Jews would be upset what someone says about the extermination of 6 million of their fellow countrymen.

[Canadian Blue]

Yeah, I don't know why Jew's would be so sensitive over the death of 6 million people, many of whom were tortured, starved, committed suicide, were burned alive, buried alive, shot, hanged, gassed.

[Charles Anthony]

Would it surprise you to learn that Germany had hate speech laws prior to the Nazis taking power? That Hitler even went to jail? That those laws accomplished nothing? That those laws were then used against the Jews and Communists and others after Hitler took power?

This does not surprise me in the least. However, do you have a link or reference? I want to find out more.

Zundel should have done a speaking tour and faced the crowds. People would have seen him for what he truly was: that there was nothing noble inside or underneath that stupid hard hat.

No one except people that wanted excuses to hate Jews would have gone to see him and they would overlook his short comings.

I believe you are very wrong: more people would face him. Here is my proof: he wore a construction hat.

Even if you are right (and we could dismiss his construction hat as a fashion statement), I do not see it to be anybody's right to use the Almighty Power Of The State to stop it. Furthermore, outing those "people that wanted excuses to hate Jews" would be an interesting thing to observe -- as a volley of cream pies welcomed their smug faces.

He would have been mocked and his mission in life would have quickly sunk.

Are you suggesting that the criminal prosecution simply enouraged him to continue? I would agree with that - he fed off he publicity and likely would have disappeared without the prosecution.

No, that is not my suggestion but I believe your prediction would be correct. If Zundel was an online internet conspiracy theorist, the same principle might apply too.

However, there is one wrinkle - he was a teacher and it would have been impossible to get rid of him from that job unless there was some legal sanction associated with his words.

That wrinkle, of which I was not aware, changes my POV on him to some extent. While I believe that someone has the right to publicly assert a stupid or even odious opinion, one does not have similar rights with regard to teaching. My view is that the (U.S.) First Amendment does not, in general, apply to school situations, and I would favor prosecution for hate teaching as opposed to hate speech.

That does not change my stance because believe people should have the freedom to fire their employees. Whatever makes it "impossible to get rid of him from that job" is the troublesome par -- however, the inherent troublesome nature of the State is a topic for a different thread.

I would suggest that my recommendations in post #24 would be more swift. Permit me to provide some of my anecdotal expertise: if teachers quit their jobs today due to the pressures of dealing with parents and rowdy students, your concern about "impossible to get rid of him from that job" takes very few of the active agents into account.

If free speech is such a wonderful thing taken to the extreme, though, why is such a big deal over what the President of Iran said?

I think the first big deal is that the President of Iran is not a submitizen of under our Almighty State.

Sorry, it really wouldn't help much to give him an arena for debate. The reason being is that most of these conspiracy theorists simply will resort to using the whole "The Jews own the world" argument which is why the truth isn't getting out. I think giving him an arena to speak his views would only result in a larger degree of anti-semitism and hatred in this country.

I think you give conspiracy theorists a lot more credit than they deserve. If Zundel was posting on this forum, would you feed him? You never know: he might join us one day.

OTOH, I assume that if someone was calling for another holocaust then that would be harmful and therefore could be banned either criminally or civilly.

People do call for overt violence and racism. Racial violence occurs all of the time throughout the world. One nutbar speaking does not trouble me in the least. I honestly believe that the court of public opinion and ostracism is more fair and powerful to stamp out racists. Racist nutbars should be publicly humiliated.

He stood his ground based on what he believed to be true. Most people could be paid off or threatened. For this reason he is a great man.

No. He devoted himself to spreading lies. That makes him a great BAD man.

Take a look at the teacer ins Alta that tried this many years ago. Run out of town , and never heard from again. (IIRC)

That would be a good example of how the court of public opinion would be more effective.

[M.Dancer]

I believe Hitler's legal problems stemmed less from speech and more from rioting....

[geoffrey]

Take a look at the teacer ins Alta that tried this many years ago. Run out of town , and never heard from again. (IIRC)

That would be a good example of how the court of public opinion would be more effective.

Nah, they sent him away too:

James Keegstra

In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-Semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denier#James_Keegstra

[Charles Anthony]

Nah, they sent him away too:

which amounted to this:

At his original trial, Keegstra was given a fine of $5000. A subsequent decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal reduced that to a one-year suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service work. [2]. While the Supreme Court upheld the original conviction and the constitutionality of the law, they did not restore the original sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra#Sentencing

It would have been cheaper to fire him.

[White Doors]

I do believe there was atrocities committed against people by the Nazis. Do I believe 6 million jewish were killed. No.

And pray tell, why not?

[Canadian Blue]

I can understand standing up to an unjust system. However Zundel is no Martin Luther King or Ceaser Chavez, he is spreading nothing but hatred against the Jews. How has he improved the lives of others, has he really sacrificed anything for this society. The last thing we should do is make martyrs out of hatemongers, no matter were you stand on the issue of freedom of speech.

[theloniusfleabag]

I do believe there was atrocities committed against people by the Nazis. Do I believe 6 million jewish were killed. No.

And pray tell, why not?

The actual number was admitted to be less than 6 million, something like 5.7. It was rounded up for convenience, though some use connivance. The 'holocaust number' is a bit of an enigma, though. Records were sketchy. Many people in the occupied territories of Nazi Germany were listed as 'missing', and post war records of civilian casualties were estimated. Poland itself lost an estimated 6 million civilians. Polish Jewry was almost entirely wiped out, with the last of them making a stand at the Warsaw Ghetto. An interesting story happened there.

[White Doors]

Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million.

The main sources for these statistics are comparisons of prewar censuses with postwar censuses and population estimates. Nazi documentation containing partial data on various deportations and murders is also used. We estimate that Yad Vashem currently has somewhat more than four million names of victims that are accessible. This figure is based primarily on some two million Pages of Testimony, which often contain information about more than one Jew who perished in the Holocaust. As of early June 1999, more than 1.6 million Pages of Testimony have been computerized. In addition, we have thousands of documents containing names from the Holocaust era, many of which are those of victims. This body of documentation has yet to be fully researched and added to our computerized database. Eventually we hope, through our computerization project, to provide as much information as possible about each victim.

Drea, fleabag - do you have issues with these numbers? If so, why?

[jbg]

I don't understand how these holocaust deniers are hurting the Jews - even if their close relative died why do they are what someone else thinks about the history of their people. I think the government put a dark cloud over them by enacting the denier laws and the issue would have ended a long time ago.

Yeah, I don't know why Jew's would be so sensitive over the death of 6 million people, many of whom were tortured, starved, committed suicide, were burned alive, buried alive, shot, hanged, gassed.

Here's one proud Jew who's four-square against Holocaust-denial laws. I'd rather beat them in the marketplace of ideas than in the Courts. And I am not an all insecure as to who has the better argument.

[theloniusfleabag]

fleabag - do you have issues with these numbers? If so, why?

No, mine seem to be about right. Further, they came from an Israeli source. (Seems a bit odd to me, however, that no phrase has been coined, nor no number given, for the non-jews exterminated in Nazi death camps. The T-4 program was in full swing before it was envisioned as 'the final solution'. )

jbg,

Here's one proud Jew who's four-square against Holocaust-denial laws.... And I am not an all insecure as to who has the better argument.

Well said. In fact, sometimes it might be better for the deniers to be in public, so everyone can see who the idiots are. However, and sadly, sometimes they become a beacon for other idiots.

[Remiel]

How exactly do you legally ostracize someone though, to the extent suggested? Slander and libel are illegal, though theoretically we could stay on the right side of the line, in practice most probably would not. What about harassment? What about sponsored harassement by the state? Those are illegal, are they not?

People want government to deal with people like Zundel because that is exactly what we empower them to do, so that we can avoid the legal maze of doing it ourself. Unless of course you want to invent a new kind of law that actually makes it legal to slander, libel and harass people who have been singled out by the state for violations of the appropriate laws and codes. But, that is a slippery slope indeed, is it not?

[M.Dancer]

How exactly do you legally ostracize someone though, to the extent suggested? Slander and libel are illegal, though theoretically we could stay on the right side of the line, in practice most probably would not. What about harassment? What about sponsored harassement by the state? Those are illegal, are they not?

People want government to deal with people like Zundel because that is exactly what we empower them to do, so that we can avoid the legal maze of doing it ourself. Unless of course you want to invent a new kind of law that actually makes it legal to slander, libel and harass people who have been singled out by the state for violations of the appropriate laws and codes. But, that is a slippery slope indeed, is it not?

Can it be made a crime to slander and liabel and entire race? Zundle would do time for sure.

[Charles Anthony]

How exactly do you legally ostracize someone though, to the extent suggested?

Just like I described in post #24 above. What more could you want?

Slander and libel are illegal, though theoretically we could stay on the right side of the line, in practice most probably would not. What about harassment? What about sponsored harassement by the state? Those are illegal, are they not?

I genuinely do not understand your questions. Please rephrase them.

People want government to deal with people like Zundel because that is exactly what we empower them to do, so that we can avoid the legal maze of doing it ourself.

It is only a "legal maze" because people made it so.

Unless of course you want to invent a new kind of law that actually makes it legal to slander, libel and harass people who have been singled out by the state for violations of the appropriate laws and codes. But, that is a slippery slope indeed, is it not?

Sounds like a fun ride! Weeeee!

Nobody needs to "invent a new kind of law" at all to deal with those issues. They just need to mind their own business. For example, you could use the same "new kind of law" that was invented to settle the vast majority of divorces: negotiation with the risk of going public.

Can it be made a crime to slander and liabel and entire race? Zundle would do time for sure.

With the strong arm of the state, you can make anything a crime.

[geoffrey]

Can it be made a crime to slander and liabel and entire race? Zundle would do time for sure.

What loss of character does a Jew suffer, if someone denies the Holocaust? Only something if they define themself by it, and that's silly in itself.

There is no harm to individuals by having Zundel yap. If his ideas were criticised in the open (which they were), most sane people aren't going to listen anyways. Throwing him in jail makes him a martyr for the weird and wacky viewpoints on the world, as we see in PolyNewb praising his dissent.

[M.Dancer]

Can it be made a crime to slander and liabel and entire race? Zundle would do time for sure.

What loss of character does a Jew suffer, if someone denies the Holocaust? Only something if they define themself by it, and that's silly in itself.

There is no harm to individuals by having Zundel yap. If his ideas were criticised in the open (which they were), most sane people aren't going to listen anyways. Throwing him in jail makes him a martyr for the weird and wacky viewpoints on the world, as we see in PolyNewb praising his dissent.

What I think people miss about the whole holocaust denial thing is there motivation. They are trying to rehabiltate the Nazi party, and to do, as their political forebears once did, turn the Jews into the scapegoat.

I you look at the collateral literature that surroundss the denial literature, it is truly criminal.