RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message


NorthernGent -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 2:11:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Ummm...not really.  Yes, six million was a quick estimate, but it's been confirmed time and time again.  Do you know of any credible historian whose estimate is significantly lower than six million?  The lowest serious number I know of is 5.1 million, which comes from Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews.

So, yeah, the number of deaths can't ever be known precisely, but it's also very misleading to say that there is any serious dispute (among historians, at any rate) over the magnitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

However, UR stated that the 6 million figure is disputed and it is disputed by serious historians (not just the right-wing lunatics), his statement is fact. You have to remember that the 6 million figure is one that was quickly assembled before the necessary research could be conducted. A few of the Eastern European countries actually had less Jews living there on the eve of WW2 than the figures murdered that are stated in the 6 million total.



As an example, the below figures are from all sorts of sources including historians and it's fair to say there is much disagreement on the number of people murdered (Jews and non-Jews) - these relate to Auschwitz. It is more than understandable that the initial estimate and future estimates will be wrong for a couple of reasons a) lack of necessary research b) the revisionism surrounding the event - you know, the great liberators (who weren't particularly helpful prior to WW2). This is a recurring theme in the study all historical events.

In my opinion, the figures do not detract from the moral enormity of what happened but what strikes me here is that the root of the holocaust was plain racism/bigotry. If people are so outraged over the holocaust then the best service they could give to the murdered Jews is to drop the racism and bigotry (towards all - including the so-called Islamofascists) that can be found on these boards on a daily basis.

9,000,000 Cited by the French documentary, Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of school students worldwide.

8,000,000 The French War Crime Research Office, Doc. 31, 1945.

7,000,000 Also cited by the French War Crime Research Office.

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 Cited in 1945 at the trial of Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess.

5,000,000 Cited on April 20, 1978 by the French daily, Le Monde. Also cited on January 23, 1995 by the German daily Die Welt. By September 1, 1989, Le Monde reduced the figure to 1,433,000.

4,500,000 In 1945 this figure was cited by another witness at the aforementioned Hoess trial.

4,000,000 Cited by a Soviet document of May 6, 1945 and officially acknowledged by the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. This figure was also reported in The New York Times on April 18, 1945, although 50 years later on January 26, 1995 (see below), The New York Times and The Washington Post slashed the figure to 1,500,000 citing new findings by the Auschwitz Museum officials. In fact, the figure of 4,000,000 was later repudiated by the Auschwitz museum officials in 1990 (see below) but the figure of 1,500,000 victims was not formally announced by Polish President Lech Walesa until five years after the Auschwitz historians had first announced their discovery.

3,500,000 Cited in the 1991 edition of the Dictionary of the French Language and by Claude Lanzmann in 1980 in his introduction to Filip Muller's book, “Three Years in an Auschwitz Gas Chamber.”

3,000,000 Cited in a confession by Rudolf Hoess, the Auschwitz commander who said this was the number of those who had died at Auschwitz prior to Dec. 1, 1943. Later cited in the June 7, 1993 issue of Heritage, the most widely read Jewish newspaper in California, even though three years previously the authorities at the Auschwitz museum had scaled down the figure to a minimum of 1,100,000 and a maximum of 1,500,000. (see below).

2,500,000 Cited by a famous witness to the Holocaust, Rudolf Vrba, when he testified on July 16, 1981 for the Israeli government's war crimes trial of former SS official Adolf Eichmann.

2,000,000 Cited by three famous Holocaust historians, including Leon Poliakov (1951) writing in “Harvest of Hate”; Georges Wellers, writing in 1973 in “The Yellow Star at the Time of Vichy”; and Lucy Dawidowicz, writing in 1975 in “The War Against the Jews.”

2,000,000 to 4,000,000 Cited by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer in 1982 in his book, “A History of the Holocaust.” However, by 1989 Bauer revised his figures and determined that the actual number was lower: 1,600,000.

1,600,000 This is a 1989 revision by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer of his earlier figure in 1982 of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000, Bauer cited this new figure on September 22, 1989 in The Jerusalem Post.

1,500,000 In 1995 this was the “official" number of Auschwitz deaths announced by Polish President Lech Walesa as determined by the historians at the Auschwitz museum. This number was inscribed on the monument at the Auschwitz camp at that time, thereby "replacing" the earlier 4,000,000 figure that had been formally repudiated (and withdrawn from the monument) five years earlier in 1990. At that time, on July 17, 1990 The Washington Times reprinted a brief article from The London Daily Telegraph citing the "new" figure of 1,500,000 that had been determined by the authorities at the Auschwitz museum. This new figure was reported two years later in a UPI report published in the New York Post on March 26, 1992. On January 26, 1995 both The Washington Post and The New York Times cited this 1,500,000 figure as the new "official" figure (citing the Auschwitz Museum authorities).

1,471,595 This is a 1983 figure cited by historian Georges Wellers who (as noted previously) had determined, writing in 1973, that some 2,000,000 had died. In his later calculation, Wellers decided that of the 1,471,595 who had died at Auschwitz, 1,352,980 were Jews.

1,433,000 This figure was cited on September 1, 1989 by the French daily, Le Monde, which earlier, on April 20, 1978, had cited the figure at 4,000,000.

1,250,000 In 1985, historian Raul Hilberg arrived at this figure in his book, “The Destruction of the European Jews.” According to Hilberg, of those dead, some 1,000,000 were Jews.

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 Sources for this estimate are historians Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum (later of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum) in their 1984 book, “Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp”; also Dr. Franciszek Piper, the curator of the Auschwitz Museum, writing a chapter in that book. This estimate was later also cited by Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, writing in The Washington Post on September 8, 1998. The upper figure of 1,500,000 thus remains the "official" figure as now inscribed at Auschwitz, with the earlier figure of 4,000,000 having been removed from the memorial at the site of the former concentration camp.

1,000,000 Jean-Claude Pressac, writing in his 1989 book “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.” This is interesting since he wrote his book to repudiate Holocaust deniers who were called that precisely because they had questioned the numbers of those who had died at Auschwitz.

900,000 Reported on August 3, 1990 11, by Aufbau, a Jewish newspaper in New York.

800,000 to 900,000 Reported by Gerald Reitlinger in his 1953 book, “The Final Solution.”

775,000 to 800,000 Jean-Claude Pressac's revised figure, put forth in his 1993 book, “The Crematoria of Auschwitz: The Mass Murder's Machinery”, scaling down the figure from Pressac's 1989 claim of 1,000,000 dead. At this juncture, Pressac said that of the new number, 630,000 were Jews.

630,000 to 710,000 In 1994 Pressac scaled his figure down somewhat further; this is the figure cited in the German language translation of Pressac's 1993 book originally published in French. Again, this is substantially less than Pressac's 1989 figure of 1,000,000.




Lordandmaster -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 6:53:23 AM)

That's interesting.  Anyway, I said that there's no way to know the number precisely, but the lowest estimate on your list is in the hundreds of thousands--and that's just Auschwitz.  To me, that means no one seriously denies that the death toll was in the millions.  I don't think it matters whether it's 3 million or 5 million or 6 million or 7 million, but it does matter whether it's 6 million or a few thousand, as "revisionists" and neo-Nazis often claim.

One thing I've never understood about Holocaust-denial arguments: where do they suppose everyone went?




LadyEllen -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 7:10:58 AM)

LaM - why, to the resettlement villages kindly provided by the nazis, in the east of course!

Those awful Russians must have steamrollered the settlements and killed everyone, when through their trickery and the incompetence of the Romanian units in the nazi line, the glorious army of the reich was overcome.

Now as for Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz and other similar camps; these were not death camps, but transit camps for those being resettled in the east. It was surely unfortunate that so much disease and starvation occurred, but then the pogrom, sorry programme of resettlement was very popular and the camps were filled with eager people looking to new lives in the east, and nazi resources were overwhelmed to feed and treat them all. In fact so popular was this programme that cattle cars had to be used to transport all the people who wanted such a new life, for the rail system was overcome by numbers.

Of course, it was tragic that the shower units used for trying to control disease and parasitical infections were, by total error, hooked up to the zyklon B pipes rather than the water system; but this was not the nazis fault. After all, those damned slave labourers built the place, and I guess one gets what one pays for in the end. But you will note that the reich did provide an efficient means of solving the problem of disease from corpses in the camps, through a programme of incineration which the damned allies claimed to be part of the death camp set up, when in fact it was a matter of public health.

Honestly, there are always two sides to any story you know? The truth, and what the imagination can interpret.

E





gooddogbenji -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 7:42:52 AM)

quote:

Of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country

 
Very good quote.  Especially when you realize that to outlaw discussion on the holocaust is to tell people they are being attacked denouncing disbelievers as unpatriotic and exposing the country to danger.
 
It works both ways, no?
 
Yours,
 
 
benji




mnottertail -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 7:58:18 AM)

This is of course very old business now:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Immer Vida (prolly not the correct spelling)

Ron




yourMissTress -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 8:25:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: beastie7
Consider Now....a nazi sits on the throne in Rome, as Vicar of Christ.


....this would be the same throne of Rome that collaberated with the Nazis in WWII..........things don't change much.


A few facts about the Pope's association with Nazis...

"In 1932 his father's outspoken criticism of the Nazis required the family to relocate to Auschau am Inn, at the foot of the Alps. His father retired in 1937, and his family moved to Hufschlag, outside of Traunstein."  (http://www.ewtn.com/pope/life/biography.asp)

"
The question of Joseph Ratzinger’s involvement with Nazi Germany and the Hitler Youth is important. Neither Ratzinger nor any member of his immediate family joined the NSDAP (Nazi Party). Ratzinger’s father was critical of the Nazi government and as a result the family had to move four times." (http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Joseph_Ratzinger_Life_Biography_Ideas_Doctrines.htm)

"In his memoirs, Ratzinger wrote that school officials enrolled him in the Hitler Youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941.Membership was compulsory and the officials enrolled his entire class, acting on orders from the Nazi regime, Allen said. Ratzinger said he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.According to Allen, his family was quietly strongly anti-Nazi, and his father took a series of less significant jobs to stay away from what was happening in Nazi Germany.During World War II, Ratzinger was drafted into army in 1943, serving in an anti-aircraft unit that tracked Allied bombing raids.He deserted in the waning months of the war in 1945 and returned to Traunstein, where he was taken prisoner by U.S. troops.In June 1945, he was released from a POW camp and returned home, this time hitching a ride on a milk truck" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/19/ratzinger.profile/index.html)

What is interesting about the second quote, is that this quote is found in the link to the article, but not in the article itself.  





Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 11:24:51 AM)

Well said, Ellen. Nicely put.

Notice that in NorthernGent's spreadsheet, the farther in time we are removed from the holocaust, the lower the numbers are?

I have it on good authorith that next year, Sean Hannity will invite supremecist Mark Weber on the air to prove that only 6 Jews died, and those were totally by accident, a fall from the luxury railroad car provided as a courtesy by the Nazi government.




Arpig -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 11:26:31 AM)

Well I am glad to learn the Zundelsite was just from a google search...I was surprised to see you post it and like Petruchio, was pretty certain it didn't represent your beliefs.
Anyhow, on to the IRC issue, here you go:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394667 (scroll down to #4, if you click on the question it doesn't take you to the info)

What I find rather interesting is that I cannot find any site that actually presents the claimed IRC report, they mereluy state that it exists, but cannot give any firther details, such as date of the report or anything like that....rather telling I methinks





Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 11:28:54 AM)

Thanks, Tress. I was unaware of this information.




Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 11:44:35 AM)

An off-line discussion with UtopianRanger clarified in my mind what he was setting forth.

The gist is that UR was pointing out that the holocaust lends itself to any number of conspiracy theories with many different agendas. As NorthGent demonstrated above, numbers abound and the more separated in time we become from the mass killings, the smaller the numbers become. UR was saying the same thing without as much detail.




UtopianRanger -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 10:36:52 PM)

Damn Gent.....I'm impressed. Is that all from memory...just off the top? [;)]

quote:

An off-line discussion with UtopianRanger clarified in my mind what he was setting forth.


Yes we did. As I mentioned....the women probably won't like it, but its nice to have another politico onboard lol  ; }

quote:

What I find rather interesting is that I cannot find any site that actually presents the claimed IRC report, they mereluy state that it exists, but cannot give any firther details, such as date of the report or anything like that....rather telling I methinks


Arpig.... From my point of view the Holocaust is history and what bothers me right now is that special-interest advocacy groups like the ADL and B'nai B'rith are really pressing hard for similar hate-speech laws here in the US like you have in the UK and Canada.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

 
-- US Constitution, First Amendment (1791)

I understand and agree with those who disavow these neo-nazi groups you speak of, but I am not selective when defending free speech. Absent yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater, if someone wants to pass out leaflets that totally deny the holocaust; I think they should be protected from criminal laws and civil forfeiture penalties.




- R






Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/15/2006 11:37:17 PM)

The administration has made such inroads against our civil liberties, I hate to see any more damage done.




MasterKalif -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/16/2006 2:06:04 AM)

I find it interesting though that an ex-representative from the US, David Duke was present there in Iran....its a strange alliance, this of white supremacists with Islamic radicals of Iran.....much like Chavez meeting Saddam Hussein in Iraq and meeting Alexander Lukashenka of Bielorussia....its a crazy world with crazy alliances I suppose.




Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/16/2006 6:29:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterKalif

I find it interesting though that an ex-representative from the US, David Duke was present there in Iran....its a strange alliance, this of white supremacists with Islamic radicals of Iran.....much like Chavez meeting Saddam Hussein in Iraq and meeting Alexander Lukashenka of Bielorussia....its a crazy world with crazy alliances I suppose.


True. Of course the Nazis set the mold with their alliances of convenience.






NorthernGent -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/17/2006 4:23:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

That's interesting.  Anyway, I said that there's no way to know the number precisely, but the lowest estimate on your list is in the hundreds of thousands--and that's just Auschwitz.  To me, that means no one seriously denies that the death toll was in the millions.  I don't think it matters whether it's 3 million or 5 million or 6 million or 7 million, but it does matter whether it's 6 million or a few thousand, as "revisionists" and neo-Nazis often claim.

One thing I've never understood about Holocaust-denial arguments: where do they suppose everyone went?


True enough, LaM. There is a massive difference between a few thousand and millions.

God only knows what's going on in the minds of some of these cranks like David Irving and the one you have over there. Where he thinks everyone went is anyone's guess. The bloke's not the full shilling.

Ultimately, we are talking about the attempted annihilation of a minority group. You'd think/hope we'd learn from the past but not in Europe I'm afraid. Same old.




NorthernGent -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/17/2006 4:49:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio

An off-line discussion with UtopianRanger clarified in my mind what he was setting forth.

The gist is that UR was pointing out that the holocaust lends itself to any number of conspiracy theories with many different agendas. As NorthGent demonstrated above, numbers abound and the more separated in time we become from the mass killings, the smaller the numbers become. UR was saying the same thing without as much detail.



Petruchio, unless I'm misunderstanding your posts you're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not quibbling about the numbers. I was merely stating a fact that the 6 million figure is disputed by genuine historians (not just the neo-nazis).

Your point about time is at best shakey because more research has been conducted over time and this suggests a more reliable figure will be concluded.

As far as I'm concerned, the holocaust was the attempted annihilation of a minority group but it started with bigotry and spiralled out of control and this is a lesson we're not learning. I see the same bigotry in England, read about it in continental Europe, read it on these boards and we both have Governments (presuming you're American) who are responsible for the deaths of a lot of people in the Middle East. How do you think they've been able to get away with this? They're only Muslims aren't they, they chop people's heads off, stone people, they're trying to take over the world with their religion etc. Does it ring any bells with the holocaust? The holocaust has gone and there's nothing anyone can do about it now apart from learn the lesson that demonising a culture/religion/race is the first step down a slippery slope.








LadyEllen -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/17/2006 11:16:06 PM)

What I dont get with neo-nazi holocaust deniers, is that what they are saying seems so contradictory.

In their view, the Jews should be "dealt with" even today. According to their twisted ideals, this goal was well on the way to achievement under the third reich, an administration which to which many of them aspire (go check out some of their sites; replete with pics of fat headed idiots in nazi uniform of the 30s; quite funny if it were in jest).

Surely given their beliefs and aims, they should be first in line to claim the greatest possible effect in that grisly machine they admire and would replicate, extolling its "virtuous efficiency" and declaiming the allied intervention which prevented its ultimate completion?

That they do not, and in the UK at least have taken to wearing suit and tie and putting forward reasonably presentable candidates for election, is a worrying matter. In the old days, when they all had skinheads and swastika tattoos, and looked like the thugs they were, when they spoke like idiots and ranted and raved, they were easier to write off and ignore. Their inner conviction of their own respectability and their portrayal of this, must be watched carefully.

At the same time though, we live in a democracy. If they can raise the deposit for elections then they must be allowed to stand, and then it is the job of democrats and the sensible to deal with them. Without fear, for truth be known, they are all to a man, immature cowards, however big and scary their would be stormtroopers might be. Profile neo nazis, and you will see what I mean; people frustrated with their lack of what they see as their deserved success in life, looking for anyone else to blame but themselves, though having done little or nothing to achieve anything.

As for Muslims; well, they are simply the enemy of the month for the neo nazis right now - the easiest target. I get the feeling though, that their communities are strong enough not to put up with any shit from emotionally challenged idiots. At the same time though, we cannot continue ignoring the neo nazis, and there is a lot of work to be done on the side of the Muslims to overcome the general impression there is, that they do not want to integrate in the UK, but rather impose their ways on it. If the Muslims could achieve that, then the rants of the neo nazis against them would be left redundant, the wind taken from the sole sail theyve managed to hoist and by which they currently move.

E




Petruchio -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/17/2006 11:50:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Petruchio, unless I'm misunderstanding your posts you're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not quibbling about the numbers. I was merely stating a fact that the 6 million figure is disputed by genuine historians (not just the neo-nazis).

Your point about time is at best shakey because more research has been conducted over time and this suggests a more reliable figure will be concluded.


No, you didn't entirely misunderstand. I pointed out the timeline as a curiosity if not precisely a hypothesis.

I am American, although I lived and worked in the UK and Europe. I hadn't realized you're from the UK until you mentioned that. Do you have a northern accent? I haven't had to read lips at all!

(There were great people and damn good Indian food in Manchester.)




NorthernGent -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/18/2006 4:14:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Petruchio, unless I'm misunderstanding your posts you're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not quibbling about the numbers. I was merely stating a fact that the 6 million figure is disputed by genuine historians (not just the neo-nazis).

Your point about time is at best shakey because more research has been conducted over time and this suggests a more reliable figure will be concluded.


No, you didn't entirely misunderstand. I pointed out the timeline as a curiosity if not precisely a hypothesis.

I am American, although I lived and worked in the UK and Europe. I hadn't realized you're from the UK until you mentioned that. Do you have a northern accent? I haven't had to read lips at all!

(There were great people and damn good Indian food in Manchester.)



Yeah, I have a Northern accent, Petruchio. Not Manchester though as I'm originally from Durham. Have you been that far North? There's always a fair few American tourists in Durham - castle, cathedral, Venerable Bede etc. Nice, quaint city, friendly and genuine people and the coast is impressive from Tynemouth down to Roker - untouched by commercialisation and well maintained. If you've been to Blackpool you'll know what I'm getting at here - grown men wandering around with plastic tits strapped to them is not funny and just plain unnecessary!

You're spot on about the curry mile in Manchester. Talk about spoilt for choice. Not sure when you were last in Manchester but it's changed so much in 10 years. There's pretty much everything here you can find in London without having to mess around with tubes all over the show. My sister lived in London for about 8 years in Greenwich. When I used to go down and see her I always had a good time but for my money I reckon Manchester has the edge on London.

Talking about reading lips, I've spoken with Americans in Dubai, Japan and over here................"what accent is that? Irish? Scottish? Australian?" anything but English. I think there's still the stereotype about the English that we all talk like the queen and associates and still drink tea at 4 in the afternoon (not a second later or you will be cast out!). I've French friends and they're amazed that in England you can go 10 miles and the accent can be so different to the place you've come from and certain parts of England are as rough as they come and visitors can be shocked by that because they're just not expecting it in quaint, old England. Ultimately though, as much as my French friends hate to admit it, they love life in Manchester for various reasons and have no intentions of going back to France.




NorthernGent -> RE: The Holocaust... did it, or didn't it?? (12/18/2006 5:01:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Damn Gent.....I'm impressed. Is that all from memory...just off the top? [;)]

  -- US Constitution, First Amendment (1791)

I understand and agree with those who disavow these neo-nazi groups you speak of, but I am not selective when defending free speech. Absent yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater, if someone wants to pass out leaflets that totally deny the holocaust; I think they should be protected from criminal laws and civil forfeiture penalties.

- R



I'll admit to a little nifty maneovuring on the net but I can't believe that's a surprise!

This bit about defending free speech, I understand the point that civil liberties is a principle and a principle does not discriminate. However, restricting freedom of speech is not being selective because it is a principle applied to all i.e. if any person can't act in a responsible manner then that person forfeits his/her privileges. We already restrict people's actions and we have laws to support this restriction. The question is where is the line drawn? Murder? Rape? Assault? Incitement? History has shown us that incitement is a precursor for physical violence and in extreme cases can lead to genocide. This is why, in my opinion, a civilised society will have freedom of speech with limits which serve partly to protect minority groups from the actions of the majority. As per Ron's Goering quote, people are easily led down a path in certain circumstances and the wise move is to remove the root cause of any future problems. In an ideal world there would be no need to restrict the actions/speech of certain people but for the good of wider society it is necessary because to date there has always been a section of society intent on destruction.

Ultimately, we create law for the well-being of society (including preventing physical violence). It seems to me that the real question here is one of is David Duke threatening the well-being of society? Not for you and I and most people on this board because we wouldn't buy all of that in a million years but what about the other cranks in this world with minds that are easily turned. We had a neo-nazi nail bomber here a few years ago who targetted the gay community and I think I'm right in thinking that in the US you've had problems with neo-nazis commiting acts of violence.

You wouldn't want people roaming around free to do what ever they want to whomever they want so why should it be acceptable for people to say whatever they want to whomever they want? In my opinion, there is a line to be drawn and incitement is where the line is. I'm not so sure this Duke bloke can be charged with incitement but I can certainly think of recent acts of blatant incitement that were excused under the banner of freedom of speech.

An interesting comparison is the treatment of African-Americans in the 1960s and before. Was it ok to demonise them and basically allow people to say whatever they wanted? The spiral of events is narrow-minded bigotry, incitement and then a movement of people develops intent on physical violence. I would hazard a guess that if some of these lunatics in the US (the likes of the KKK etc) had been censored in their early days the level of violence would have been much less. If restriction of speech is for the wider good of minority groups and wider society then why should we be concerned about censoring the likes of Duke? He is free to do as he pleases when he can act with respect.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02