Holocaust revisionism is not an academic dispute. Its almost always goes hand in hand with anti-semetism and neo-nazi beliefs. I am rather fortunate, I grew up with someone who had firsthand knowledge of the holocaust - my father participated in the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp system at the end of the second world war. For what he told me and the photos he had taken during the time he spent there are absolutely convincing that not only the Holocaust happened, but that what was learned in our schools ietc is an extremly mild and sanitized version of what happened. Irving deserves what happened to him.
larry On 3/2/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "The sentencing of the British historian David Irving to three years > imprisonment for making a statement some 17 years ago in Austria that > there were no gas chambers and crematoria in the death camps of Poland > must come as a surprise to many, especially the younger generation. > > Some might even ask what's the big deal? Older persons however will no > doubt recall the last days of the last war and the early post-war > years and the newsreels and newspapers of the day, as well as the > several dispassionate historical accounts. That anyone, particularly a > historian, might even suggest that this mass murder of several million > mainly Jewish people of different nationalities, Gypsies and > homosexuals did not actually take place seems beyond belief or > explanation. > > But as historians will note there are often different interpretations > of history, with some being very much coloured by the personality of > the interpreter. Indeed, Mr Irving's peers have been extremely > critical of his work suggesting that his right wing convictions have > led to his version of the tragic events in Europe. He actually > unsuccessfully sued one of his critics for libel. But Holocaust denial > as a crime? Yes, we must remember the role of both Germany and Austria > in the genocide of six million. It is their way of remembering the > racist genocide. > > We must count ourselves extremely fortunate in this country where we > seem to be able to control some of the worst manifestations of > negative human behaviour. Our libel and defamation laws may be > colonial relics but by and large the daily print media generally act > responsibly, although libel suits are not unheard of. Many are brought > simply to gag the media and rarely come to trial. > > The issue is not the same with some of our radio stations where there > is often discourse that is libellous of others. Sometimes statements > can be vitriolic and hateful. In theory there are official measures > that may be taken to regulate offensive behaviour, such as cancelling > a transmission licence, but the media, and many citizens, prefer media > self-regulation. But there is an issue that we must remember. Free > speech is one of the pillars of democracy. This is why our > Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. This is why our > parliamentarians are given almost absolute freedom to speak their > minds. > > But as many have suggested freedom is not an absolute freedom and must > always be tempered by concern for the effects of what one says on > others who may have different views or perceptions, be they of > different religions or ethnicities, or indeed political affiliation. > Perhaps we too might learn from that seemingly remote human tragedy as > we grow as a nation." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198531 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
