Babylon Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 When the danish ridicule Islam it is labled as freedom of speach, yet when an englishman denied the holocaust he got sent to prison for several years? Why does the West consider one to be ok and the other not to be?
Steven Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 When the danish ridicule Islam it is labled as freedom of speach, yet when an englishman denied the holocaust he got sent to prison for several years? Why does the West consider one to be ok and the other not to be? Firstly I would like to say I don't condone either, the ridiculing or the denying. The silence in the West after David Irving expressed his opinion, repugnent though it is, to me just shows the utter hypocrisy in some many Western quarters about the notion of "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Expression".
Babylon Posted 26 February 2006 Author Posted 26 February 2006 Firstly I would like to say I don't condone either, the ridiculing or the denying. The silence in the West after David Irving expressed his opinion, repugnent though it is, to me just shows the utter hypocrisy in some many Western quarters about the notion of "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Expression". Exactly.
Thracian Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 When the danish ridicule Islam it is labled as freedom of speach, yet when an englishman denied the holocaust he got sent to prison for several years? Why does the West consider one to be ok and the other not to be? Because the world is full of hypocrisy.
Benji Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 To be fair though this should not be a issue! Our government make bills all the time, those that are passed we must obide, take our new anti-terrorism laws, if someone now incites hatrid, they will be arrested. Whether the Austrian law is fair or not, it IS in place, they have made it illegal for someone to deny the holocaust. So whether this guy is just using his freedom of speech or not, he is breaking the law, and i'm pretty sure he knew he was going to get arrested for going into the country. The guys just looking for attention, to deny the holocaust is a pretty sick thing IMO and only smells of attention seeking. I understand what people are saying about this making us lose our freedom of speech, but i hate this individual case. The guy doesn't deserve our time. If it was the same situation with a different topic, i would fully agree however with what Babylon and Steven have said.
The People's Hero Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 The issue is that freedom of speech is allowed and is in fact encouraged. In this case however, a historian, a previously respected historian has completely ignored a plethora of evidence to the contrary and presented a hardly justifiable viewpoint which many people will find to be sickening.
Steven Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 To be fair though this should not be a issue! Our government make bills all the time, those that are passed we must obide, take our new anti-terrorism laws, if someone now incites hatrid, they will be arrested. Whether the Austrian law is fair or not, it IS in place, they have made it illegal for someone to deny the holocaust. So whether this guy is just using his freedom of speech or not, he is breaking the law, and i'm pretty sure he knew he was going to get arrested for going into the country. The guys just looking for attention, to deny the holocaust is a pretty sick thing IMO and only smells of attention seeking. I understand what people are saying about this making us lose our freedom of speech, but i hate this individual case. The guy doesn't deserve our time. If it was the same situation with a different topic, i would fully agree however with what Babylon and Steven have said. Blair playing politics and nothing else. Will do nothing of any use. <_< Perhaps we should have a law banning anyone being called Benji on a forum and that will prove as much use as anything else. Finally nowadys too many Politicians make too many laws that are done for Politics and not to solve problems. That is fine if the circumstances under which they are elected is democratic but in the case of Blair when he has only 20 to 25% of the total possible vote and still claim to be in Government, then I know he is a fascist and all his Fascism should be opposed (legally) at all times. <_< Mussolini said it and Blair lives it. Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism: "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
Benji Posted 26 February 2006 Posted 26 February 2006 Blair playing politics and nothing else. Will do nothing of any use. <_< Perhaps we should have a law banning anyone being called Benji on a forum and that will prove as much use as anything else. Finally nowadys too many Politicians make too many laws that are done for Politics and not to solve problems. That is fine if the circumstances under which they are elected is democratic but in the case of Blair when he has only 20 to 25% of the total possible vote and still claim to be in Government, then I know he is a fascist and all his Fascism should be opposed (legally) at all times. <_< Well if it was banned, then i would call myself something else, I wouldn't go purposely on a messageboard, call myself benji, then complain and look for media attention when i'm arrested Blair may well be playing politics, but what he proposes still has to be passed by his opposition (but granted his party as well). I can't argue with you that many 'laws are done for politics' - because for one i don't know, i don't have a clue what goes through parliament everyday, the details etc and secondly, your probably right, there seems a case that constant ''reform'' (note its in '') is all they seem to do, whether for the better or not. I only used Britain as an example on this thread to state the point that if someone comes into this country and disobeys a law (that isn't a law in their own country) they will still be arrested. So why should it be any different for the Historian in Austria.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.