Earnst Zundel

[Argus]

I'm not shedding any tears. In some ways it is a conflict though between what a society should allow in term's of free speech, and whether or not the state has the right to regulate speech in order to keep prevent bigotry and hatred.

And those laws have done such a bang-up job over there! Yes, sir, you won't find hate groups in places which ban hate speech, like Germany or France or the UK!

Everyone lives in peace and harmony over there now.

[Drea]

What if he is correct?

What if there really wasn't a holocaust?

Should we not be allowed to question, to examine all evidence? Or do we have to take the "official story" at face value, keep our heads down and not question anything?

What if it was decided that those who question 911's offical story are criminals worthy of jail?

What if it was decided that those who question the official story of JFK's assassination?

What if it was decided that those who question the morality of homosexuality and speak our against it be considered criminals?

What then?

[Argus]

I must concur with you and August1991. I laugh at and ridicule holocaust deniers, but I don't agree that jail time is appropriate method to deal with issues of free speech. Unless, of course, Zundel was calling for a second 'holocaust'.

The holocaust is not something that reasonable people disagree on - the facts are clear. Hatred of Jews is the only possible motivation for denying the Holocaust (the recent denier love-in in Tehran is a case in point).

Furthermore, spreading these kinds of unfounded claims directed at a specific ethnic group are exactly the kinds of claims that lead to violance againce people from the group.

What evidence do you have of this? Because in the US and Canada, which have much softer laws on hatred, races and ethnic groups seem to get along far better than in Europe, where you can go to jail for using an ethnic slur on someone.

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?

[PolyNewbie]

Argus:What evidence do you have of this? Because in the US and Canada, which have much softer laws on hatred, races and ethnic groups seem to get along far better than in Europe, where you can go to jail for using an ethnic slur on someone.

There is a bill currently in congress that would have the same laws implemented in the USA. Look up Ted Pike, he is a lawyer that discusses this in detail as well as the implications of such laws. Apparently the bill stands a good chance of passing in congress.

[jbg]

This is the way I see things: I would rather we let people say what they want.

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. He would have been mocked and his mission in life would have quickly sunk. Nobody would hire him in Canada and he would have gone bankrupt.

*snip*

I think part of the problem is that people do not want freedom.

Bang on!!!!

[Riverwind]

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.

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.

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.

[Remiel]

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 mean, he's free to say it, right? And if everyone is so noble, why do we need economic sanctions against countries? We're all strong enough to volunteer not to do business with them, right?

How do you reconcile the micro and the macro of your arguments against prosecuting Zundel?

[Canadian Blue]

Zundel is a hero, whether he is right or wrong he stood by his beliefs and went to jail for the sake of his beliefs, need for the truth and sense of community. Many of the leaders in power today do not share these qualities and are often backstabbers, liars and war criminals.

People like Zundel do not do well in a nihilist philosophy based civilization. In our civilization it is the scum that rises to the top. This always happens when there is a vast separation between the rich and poor. The uber rich dvelop a sinse of malfeasance toward the rest of the population, this nihilism plants itself in the culture and the civilization slowly falls apart.

The people of the world would be far better off if Zundel was released and the likes of Bush, Harper and Blair were sent to the hague, not to mention the group of war criminals that currently plays advisor roles at the white house.

We currently live in the most dangerous time in history, many people know about the lies about WMD's but cannot handle the fact that the lies actually run much deeper - even with all the evidence. I would have thought the fact that three bombs were found at Oklahoma would wake everyone up. It sure did when it happened while I was in school but those people were much smarter and well read than the average internet discussion group poster of these days.

I hope to god not, if our heroes are made up of holocaust deniers then were heading towards another Nazi Germany.

The most dangerous time in the 20th century was 1939-1945.

What if he is correct?

What if there really wasn't a holocaust?

Well, since you are a 9/11 revisionist holocaust denial isn't too far off. He couldn't be correct when taking into account all of the primary evidence we have with regards to the holocaust. Talk to a holocaust survivor and see what they think about people denying what happened to them.

What if it was decided that those who question 911's offical story are criminals worthy of jail?

What if it was decided that those who question the official story of JFK's assassination?

What if it was decided that those who question the morality of homosexuality and speak our against it be considered criminals?

Don't worry, we just consider those people conspiracy nuts.

History is always being re written and questioning history is an important part of understanding it. I see nothing wrong with debating any issue and think when restrictions are placed on free debate it prevents the truth from comming out and from people gaining understanding and developing interest in history.

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.

[Drea]

I hope to god not, if our heroes are made up of holocaust deniers then were heading towards another Nazi Germany.

The most dangerous time in the 20th century was 1939-1945.

The world was at war during those years. The world is not at war today -- no matter what the US administration says LOL.

Well, since you are a 9/11 revisionist holocaust denial isn't too far off. He couldn't be correct when taking into account all of the primary evidence we have with regards to the holocaust. Talk to a holocaust survivor and see what they think about people denying what happened to them.

I have, a longtime boyfriend's mom was in the camps. She was from Czhecoslovakia (sp), her father was killed in the camps. So yes, I do believe there was atrocities committed against people by the Nazis. Do I believe 6 million jewish were killed. No.

What if it was decided that those who question 911's offical story are criminals worthy of jail?

What if it was decided that those who question the official story of JFK's assassination?

What if it was decided that those who question the morality of homosexuality and speak our against it be considered criminals?

Don't worry, we just consider those people conspiracy nuts.

So you beleive that Christians who speak against homosexuality are "conspiracy theorists"?

History is always being re written and questioning history is an important part of understanding it. I see nothing wrong with debating any issue and think when restrictions are placed on free debate it prevents the truth from comming out and from people gaining understanding and developing interest in history.

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.

There will always be nutbars at either end of the spectrum. Some would say "No Jews were killed at all!" while others say "6 million jews were killed!". The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Regardless, we should not be jailed for what we believe. We should not be jailed for questioning authority or questioning the "official version" of anything.

[geoffrey]

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

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.

Throwing those with alternative viewpoints, no matter how radical, in jail is a troubling road to go down. What prevents him from writting and publishing more hate literature from there? What exactly do we gain by having him in jail?

[Riverwind]

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?

[geoffrey]

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

I don't see how the existance of the Holocaust effects the individual reputations of the Jews. I certainly hope they don't define themselves around some permenant victimhood. If the Holocaust didn't happen, as Zundel is saying, I really don't see how that should change anyones views about Jewish individuals.

So no, there isn't slander here.

[Riverwind]

I don't see how the existance of the Holocaust effects the individual reputations of the Jews. I certainly hope they don't define themselves around some permenant victimhood. If the Holocaust didn't happen, as Zundel is saying, I really don't see how that should change anyones views about Jewish individuals.

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.

[PolyNewbie]

The whole Holocaust denial thing just puts a dark cloud over them and its probably one reason why people look at Jews for 911. Personally I don't think they did 911 just because of all the evidence thats been given against them. They were set up to distract many people from the true culprits.

The idea of state mandated truth is right out of 1984 and says more about our governments than the Jews or anyone else.

[geoffrey]

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.

Of course, that's inciting violance. Same reason why I think Mamma Khadr needs to be in jail, encouraging her children that they need to die for Allah like their father. Her rants against the West and Canada (while we pay for her kid's medical treatment) make Zundel look like a rational person.

It's a considerable double standard to jail Zundel for denying history (not inciting violence), and let the Khadr's preach about Jihad against the West from the comfort of their Toronto apartment.

[jbg]

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.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm not sure, I think that a white supremacist, nazi, and holocaust denier, is spreading hatred anyway you look at it. I think to allow hate groups to operate openly in the public would lead to more hate crimes, and in general more hostility amongst ethnic groups.

[jbg]

I'm not sure, I think that a white supremacist, nazi, and holocaust denier, is spreading hatred anyway you look at it. I think to allow hate groups to operate openly in the public would lead to more hate crimes, and in general more hostility amongst ethnic groups.

My view is that aside from schools, that's one of the prices of living in a free society. Unlike unfree ones, we don't put those hatreds into action.

Germany's democratic tradition, as of Hitler's election in 1933, dated back to the Versaiile Treaty and the establishment of the Weimar Republic. I see no risk that countries like Canada and the US, that trace democratic traditions to before the Magna Carta couild become unfree ass the result of the rantings of lunatics.

[PolyNewbie]

Magna Carta is gone

[madmax]

What if there really wasn't a holocaust?

These kinds of questions worries me.

[madmax]

Zundel is a hero

A hero to you. A racist jackass to me.

[Canadian Blue]

I agree Madmax, I don't see how anyone can see a white supremacist as a hero.

[Argus]

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 mean, he's free to say it, right? And if everyone is so noble, why do we need economic sanctions against countries? We're all strong enough to volunteer not to do business with them, right?

How do you reconcile the micro and the macro of your arguments against prosecuting Zundel?

Nobody cares what that mouth breather says except as an indication of the intentions of a man spending a fortune developing nuclear weapons.

Now if you could demonstrate that Zundel was spending a fortune trying to put together weapons to use against Jews you'd have a case to lock him up.

[Argus]

Argus:What evidence do you have of this? Because in the US and Canada, which have much softer laws on hatred, races and ethnic groups seem to get along far better than in Europe, where you can go to jail for using an ethnic slur on someone.

There is a bill currently in congress that would have the same laws implemented in the USA. Look up Ted Pike, he is a lawyer that discusses this in detail as well as the implications of such laws. Apparently the bill stands a good chance of passing in congress.

No such law is possible in the US without a constitutional amendment.

[PolyNewbie]

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. It is irrelevant whether you believe him or not. He has courage to go with his convictions - no politician has that these days.