Amnesty International on David Irving
Stephen Glynn
Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
isn't, AFAIK, charged with advocating violence or incitement to hatred.
Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
> Dear Mr Glynn,
>
> Thank you for your email concerning Amnesty International's position
> on David Irving's arrest.
>
> Amnesty International's position on the issue of 'Holocaust denial'
> is based on international human rights standards. The International
> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, in Article 19,
> that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, but that
> certain restrictions may be placed on that right if they are
> necessary for the respect of the rights of others; Article 20 states
> that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
> constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall
> be prohibited by law.
>
> In line with this and other international human rights standards,
> Amnesty International works for the right to free expression and
> adopts as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for
> exercising their right to freedom of expression, however it will not
> adopt as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for using
> hate speech to deliberately or recklessly incite acts of violence,
> discrimination, or hostility against another group.
>
> The language used to advocate hatred is not always explicit or
> direct. Sometimes it uses euphemisms which, over the years, become
> well-known, such as denying the occurrence of the Holocaust and
> thereby alleging that the extensive documentation of the Holocaust is
> fraudulent and that its victims are lying. Since Jews, Roma, gay
> persons, and disabled persons were the principal victims of the
> Holocaust and are still subject to discrimination, this can
> constitute advocacy of hatred and an incitement to discrimination and
> hostility against those groups.
>
> In line with its normal practice, when applying the policy to
> individual cases, AI considers each case on its own merit. In cases
> where it determines that an individual who has been imprisoned for
> denying the Holocaust has, in effect, advocated hatred as described
> above, AI would not adopt them as prisoners of conscience. This is
> the reason why we will not adopt David Irving as a prisoner of
> conscience.
>
> I hope that this explains our position and addresses your concerns.
>
> With very best wishes and many thanks for your interest in our work.
>
I've written back asking them what happens when they try to apply this
line of reasoning to someone charged, if Charles Clarke gets his way,
with 'indirect incitement to terrorism' or some such.
If anyone's interested, their email is S...@amnesty.org.uk
Steve
Jason P
well worth the time to send them an e-mail on the matter.
Thanks for posting this.
Big Pete
> > fraudulent and that its victims are lying.
People seem to get very confused between victims and witnesses.
A victim is dead and therefore cannot lie.
A witness is alive and can therefore tell people what they saw.
Very few people have ever claimed to have seen anyone being gassed during
W.W.II
The hand full of people who have made such claims are treated with a pinch
of salt by even the holocaust believers.
George Saden
Stephen Glynn wrote:
> I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
> Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the official line from minitrue eh Glynn.
Our resident propagandist has spoken.
AlanG
I stopped directly supporting amnesty years ago when they stopped
being purely an organisation looking after the interests of political
prisoners and became involved in issues like gun control and victim
disarmament. This latest change puts me even further from them. The
issue of free speech cannot be compromised. If he is wrong then
reasoned argument can prove it.
Stephen Glynn
It's my opinion, George. I realise the distinction between fact and
opinion is one you find difficult, though.
Steve
DRA
prefer we forget it ever happened, if it ever actually did?
Actually it got it's start in the British Eugenics movement, and was
only carried to it's ultimate conclusion (Genocide) by the German
people.
Perhaps this compelling and informative article will help you
understand why we object to it's denial.
Respectfully,
Steven Palmer ~ Advocate
DISABLED RIGHTS ALLIANCE
* A Non-Government Organization *
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Kill That Cripple
by Ken Davis
from Mouth magazine
copyright 1995, Free Hand Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here we go again.
China's rulers are soon to impose laws to "stop the prevalence of
abnormal birth." This is not about stopping the birth of able-bodied
people capable of performing massacres in Tiananmen Square. No,
apparently that is quite OK. By "abnormal," they mean disabled people.
"China," says the Xinhua News Agency in Beijing, now has "10 million
disabled people who could have been prevented through better controls."
This desire to get rid of mentally and physically different people runs
like a thread through human history. The Alaskan Inuits killed impaired
kids at birth, as did the Masai of Africa and the Woggeo of New Guinea.
Greeks in the fourth century BC used to expose (leave out in the
weather to die) their disabled infants.
The Bible doesn't help much either. In Leviticus 21:18 for example,
some twelve impairments - from restricted growth to ruptured testicles,
are listed as being unacceptable to God whilst in 2 Samuel 5:8 He
orders that those who are blind and lame "shall not come into the
home."
Darwin's theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest gave these
ancient attitudes a new lease on life. In the capitalist jungle of
Victorian England, social Darwinism and eugenics were soon invented to
scientifically prove that, if the weakest went to the wall, such was
the inevitable price of progress. Why bother to change society for the
better when you had a scientifically legitimate way of getting rid of
those who couldn't keep up, who fell by the wayside?
Soon enough, dozens of organizations such as the National Association
for the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded (1896) and the British
Social Hygiene Council (1914) were set up in Britain to protect society
from being polluted by undesirable elements. But it was the Eugenics
Society which fought for legislation in Britain to eliminate racial
poisons, to increase the better stocks, and to promote the purity of
the race.
You get an idea of the pollution in the heads of these non-disabled
ghouls when you look at the kinds of things they used to say. In 1931
the Eugenics Society Secretary, C.P. Blacker (cited in Jones, 1986,
p.95) wrote to the Medical Research Council about the challenge to
research presented by "four million persons (the 10% subcultural group
in England and Wales) who are the purveyors of inefficiency,
prostitution, feeble-mindedness and petty crime, the chief architects
of slumdom, the most fertile strain in the community. Four million
persons forming the dregs of the community and thriving upon it as the
mycelium of some fungus thrives upon a healthy vigorous plant."
Of course by "purveyors of social inefficiency," they didn't mean nice,
upright people like themselves who propped up an unequal,
discriminatory society hell-bent on the pursuit of profit and the
exploitation of natural and human resources. No, they meant people like
us disabled who were made dependent and unproductive by people who had
created the kind of society which served and perpetuated their own
non-disabled interests.
In England, the Eugenics Society failed to get enough members of
Parliament to support their 1931 Voluntary Sterilisation Bill, but
elsewhere in the world the message was getting through. In 1907 Indiana
was the first of 30 American states to legalize the sterilization of a
variety of disabled people and other "undesirables," and similar laws
were passed in Germany (1933-4), Canada (1928), Denmark and Sweden
(1929), Finland (1930) and Iceland (1930).
It was of course in Germany that the lust for our blood was taken to
its logical conclusion. Under the National Socialist Party, the 1933
Law on the Prevention of Congenitally Impaired Progeny and the 1935
Marriage Health Law legalized involuntary sterilization and required
doctors to report known disabled people to the Sterilization Courts.
But it was Hitler who really set the ball rolling to sweep us off the
face of the earth. On September 1, 1939, he issued a directive which
gave authority to "certain physicians to be designated by name in such
a manner that persons who, according to human judgement, are incurable
can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be
accorded a mercy death."
In effect, this legalized the so-called "euthanasia programme" under
which, by 1941, some 200,000 disabled Germans had been systematically
exterminated by doctors in six killing centers across the country, by a
variety of means including poison gas, starvation and lethal injections
of morphine or scopolamine. The bodies were incinerated; some centers
installed conveyor belts to permanent on-site coke- or oil-fired
furnaces, others used mobile furnaces later mobilized for use in the
Holocaust. Disabled people were thus the guinea pigs which enabled
eugenic "science" to find its fullest expression in genocide.
But it wasn't the killing of disabled people that temporarily energized
public morality, it was the larger-scale Holocaust, the murder of
Europe's Jews. Eugenicists have ever since had to tread very carefully
in pursuing their ambitions. Nowadays, they manipulate language to make
their ideas more palatable. Their Eugenics Quarterly has been renamed
The Journal of Social Biology. The Annals of Eugenics has become The
Annals of Genetics .
For "human stock" we now read "gene pool" and "genetic hygiene" is now
known as "genetic counselling."
Doctors today dress up methods of selecting out crips, methods like
amniocentesis or ultrasound screening, as a form of reproductive choice
for parents, even as being for our welfare. So-called sex selection
techniques offer parents the choice of whether to bring males or
females into their world.
Eugenicists are becoming more confident; some have suggested that
genetic screening should be made compulsory before marriage. This is
clearly less to do with reproductive choice, more to do with the
eugenic control of certain types of people.
Disabled people are always at risk of fancy scientific ideas which
allow old prejudices to strut around in the clothing of compassion, of
new and desirable social advances. China's recently-announced
sterilization laws are just an old way, nicked from the West, to shift
attention away from social, economic and political problems. Such
problems, coupled with "scientific advances" and the general drift to
the right in world politics, create the climate where the morally
upright can openly campaign for the morally repellent.
This can be seen as much in the freedom with which pressure groups
campaign for the legalization of euthanasia - as recently in the states
of Oregon and Washington - or in judicial rulings permitting the
switching off of food, water, and air to people in coma, and in the
impunity with which Parliament feels that it is able to sacrifice
disabled life in the form of potentially impaired fetuses in the
passage of laws governing abortion.
Ten years ago the Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People [DCDP] wrote
the following into its Policy Statement: "The Coalition affirms the
value of individual human life and the right of all impaired people to
lead a full and satisfying life. To this end the Coalition opposes any
attempt to legalise the withholding, on the grounds of a person's
impairment, of anything necessary to support the continuation of life.
We will endeavor to identify the social causes which devalue life, and
to find the means to remove these causes."
We stand by it today. Today DCDP has affiliated with the Anti-Nazi
League and the Anti-Racist Alliance. The rise of neo-nazism, the
increasing numbers of disabled people being attacked on the streets of
European cities, and the reversion to nationalism and territorial
hostilities, show how easily the political climate essential for the
re-emergence of the most extreme eugenic policies has come round yet
again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article reprinted with permission from Info, the newsletter of the
Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People, and through the grace of
Coalition, the magazine of the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled
People, both of England.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why join the DRA?
So far the British Columbia Liberal Party (led by the infamous Gordon
Campbell) have managed to get rid of 6,065 adults, many of whom were
disabled and 713 children in government care, and all in only 32 months
and without any investigations! Just think of all the money they
saved thetaxpayers, .... Just by killing a few cripples nobody wanted
anyway. Never Again, eh?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Feel free to Join the DISABLED RIGHTS ALLIANCE and Help Stop The
Madness in British Columbia:
http://groups.google.com/group/DISABLED-RIGHTS-ALLIANCE
OR in the UK:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/dracanada/
George Saden
That's rich coming from somone who states as fact, 'objectionable and
wrong headed as he *certainly* is'.
Pot kettle black.
Gaz
> I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
> Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
> isn't, AFAIK, charged with advocating violence or incitement to hatred.
>
> Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
>
>> Dear Mr Glynn,
>>
>> Thank you for your email concerning Amnesty International's position
>> on David Irving's arrest.
>>
Thank you stephen, most informative. Is the behaviour of Amnesty the very
definition of Hendersons 'Liberal bigot' term?
I always suspected that many of these internationalist organisations where
just front organisations for Communist agitators. Since Communism is dead
and buried, whats their excuse now?
Gaz
Gaz
Its largely irrelevant what the issue is. This man wrote a book, and gave
lectures claiming that something or other wasnt how it is said it was. His
work does not incite, I am sure it is slaughtered when under peer review,
but to be held in jail for writing a book??
If he was jailed in Italy for writing a book claiming Islam should replace
Christianity in the West, Amnesty International would be all over him like
flies to shit.
Gaz
Chris X
"Stephen Glynn" <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2pjlf.15246$GC1....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
> Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
> isn't, AFAIK, charged with advocating violence or incitement to hatred.
>
> Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
(Snip mealy-mouthed drivel and slavish endorsement of the Big Lie !)
Thanks for posting this, it's *very* interesting. Is it Ok if I repost it
elsewhere ? I will, of course, remove your name from it.
Gaz
You fool. It is people like glynn, fair minded people who dont agree with
you, but are willing to stick up for you, that are the preservers of
Liberty.
The Government could quite easily pass a law banning the BNP, and round up
not only the supporters, but check the ballot papers for who voted for them,
and round them up as well. It is clear the organisations such as Amnesty
International wouldnt help you, and the majority population wouldnt care
less, what stops them doing it, is people like Glynn, like Henderson, like
Abelard, and myself, and yet it is us you target your fire.
Gaz
Ariadne
Big Pete wrote:
> > > thereby alleging that the extensive documentation of the Holocaust is
> > > fraudulent and that its victims are lying.
>
> The hand full of people who have made such claims are treated with a pinch
> of salt by even the holocaust believers.
Absolutely untrue as anyone can see by a visit to
http://www.nizkor.org
and
Ariadne
AlanG wrote:
>
> I stopped directly supporting amnesty years ago when they stopped
> being purely an organisation looking after the interests of political
> prisoners and became involved in issues like gun control and victim
> disarmament. This latest change puts me even further from them. The
> issue of free speech cannot be compromised. If he is wrong then
> reasoned argument can prove it.
Reasoned argument _and evidence_ have proved how wrong he
is over and over again. An English court also found him deceitful,
antisemitic and not a true historian. That wasn't enough disgrace
for Irving. He then had to visit a country from which he had been
banned and which was holding a warrant for his arrest.
If you think Irving was unconnected with incitement to hatred you
should read Professor Funke's evidence in Irving's failed libel
action.
A Darwin award would be appropriate.
AI supports terrorism and is no better than the UN.
Harold Maude
> About that Holocaust....and the many people all over the world who
> prefer we forget it ever happened, if it ever actually did?
>
> Actually it got it's start in the British Eugenics movement, and was
> only carried to it's ultimate conclusion (Genocide) by the German
> people.
Done by some Germans but not by the German people, that's an important
difference. The Euthanasie (T4) program was a top secret action. And the
Holocaust was alike.
Big Pete
Professor Mayer wrote in his book 'Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?'
(on page 362 of his book): "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at
once rare and unreliable."
"most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and
executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and
bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be
influenced by subjective factors of great complexity."
George Saden
Gaz wrote:
> George Saden wrote:
>
>>Stephen Glynn wrote:
>>
>>>I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
>>>Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>That's the official line from minitrue eh Glynn.
>>
>>Our resident propagandist has spoken.
>
>
> You fool. It is people like glynn, fair minded people who dont agree with
> you, but are willing to stick up for you, that are the preservers of
> Liberty.
Oh har har.
Glynn is a living part of the legal system that represses us all, part
of the very aparatus that only last week saw one set of murderers
sentenced to only half of what they should have recieved for a racist
murder. That's pure evil, decit couched in truth, which is what Glynn
really represents.
> The Government could quite easily pass a law banning the BNP, and round up
> not only the supporters, but check the ballot papers for who voted for them,
> and round them up as well. It is clear the organisations such as Amnesty
> International wouldnt help you, and the majority population wouldnt care
> less, what stops them doing it, is people like Glynn, like Henderson, like
> Abelard, and myself, and yet it is us you target your fire.
Despite what you wish to believe, I personally have absoutely nothing to
do with the BNP, they are far too moderate in my opinion.
You're just harping on about grandiose principals that are not genuinely
laurels that rest on either Glynns or your shoulders.
Take a cold shower, and have a good look round, reality is not pretty.
TD
Jason P
There are more than one side to every story, and to date the
Jewish-Zionist-Collective will not allow people like Irving to have a
divergent opinion to their own.
That is the crux of Zionist hypocrisy.
In a review of David Irving's "Goebbels - Mastermind of the 'Third
Reich'" in The Daily Telegraph, British historian Sir John Keegan
stated that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German
side of the Second World War," and that Hitler's War was
"indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the
round."
As much as you would like it, you can't have it both ways, like a good
professional Jew -- sock/meat-puppet -- spouting-off the official
Zionist party line from deep in the depths of your hate-filled bowels.
Once you deny Irving his right to have an anti-Zionist point of view,
you by the same stroke deny your rights to refute him. Once you start
to examine Irving's motives and claim they are driven by "hatred" of
the Jews, you open the door for you own motives to be determined and
similarly declared driven by negative anti-German (or anti-white)
emotions.
Don't Zionists feel hatred of the "Third Reich's" Nazi politics when
discussing or accounting the Jewish-Chauvinistic versions of what
transpired in WW-II Europe?
If you claim some European court's 'perfect right' to declare Irving's
works to be bias-based rhetoric of hate, by the same token you are
allowing another future court, somewhere, to do the same thing to
people who write about the self-righteous Zionist's perspective.
Little do you realize you are cutting off your Jewish nose to spite
your Jewish face..! Once you and people like you start abridging other
people's rights to opinions and free-speech, -- no matter their motive
-- you abridge you own similar rights. Like it or not you will have to
live with that one way or the other.
Stephen Glynn
The courts, you fool, are one of the few protections we've got against
the arbitrary use of power, whether by the state or by individuals.
While certainly imperfect -- of course they are, since they're run by
humans who do the best they can to implement laws they're given by
Parliament, and pretty dreadful laws they are too, sometimes -- they're
one of the few institutions in this country that manage maintain their
independence and who insist on proof and evidence before they convict or
acquit. That's why they upset feeble-minded ideologues like you and
David Blunkett; because they work with the world as it is rather than
the world as you imagine it to be, and who see the role of the courts as
to produce the result that the ideologue knows to be correct, and they
don't mind getting stick for trying, instead, for producing a result
that's in accordance with the law and the evidence.
Roper: “So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!”
More: “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
to the Devil?”
Roper: “I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on
you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat. This
country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man’s laws, not
God’s -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it --
do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow
then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”
Robert Bolt: Man for All Seasons
Steve
Stephen Glynn
Certainly you may, though I would appreciate your taking my name off it.
Here's the non-reply I received today to my point about the comparison
with their attitudes to David Irving and to 'indirect incitement to
terrorism':
'I am sorry that my response did not address your concerns fully but I
believe that I have explained our position on the issue of 'Holocaust
denial' and the reason why David Irving as not been adopted as prisoner
of conscience.
'All our comments on the UK anti-terrorism measures are available in our
website (see link below) and of course, each case we work on will always
be assessed individually on its own merit.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-gbr/index '
I have to say that, on the face of it, Amnesty's criticism of the
proposed measures on 'indirect incitement to terrorism' doesn't seem to
square too well with their response about David Irving:
'Amnesty International continues to be concerned about these clauses
despite the amendments of the House of Commons. We consider that that
the formulations of these offences are vague because they rely on the
definition of "terrorism" in the Terrorism Act 2000, and on concepts
such as "direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement",
"glorification", and the notion of "terrorist publication", all of which
are widely open to ambiguity and lack clarity. Amnesty International
further considers that the scope of these provisions is sweeping and
disproportionate.'
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450552005?open&of=ENG-GBR
It's precisely that *vagueness* and *lack of clarity* to which I object
in their explanation that 'The language used to advocate hatred is not
always explicit or direct. Sometimes it uses euphemisms which, over the
years, become well-known ... Since Jews, Roma, gay persons, and
disabled persons were the principal victims of the Holocaust and are
still subject to discrimination, this can constitute advocacy of hatred
and an incitement to discrimination and hostility against those groups.'
If they mean to say that David Irving *is* actually inciting hatred and
discrimination so that's why they won't take up his case because that's
no allowed under their charter, then fair enough. Let them say it,
and, indeed, let them press for his prosecution here for incitement to
racial hatred. But if they don't say that, then, to my mind, they
should be supporting him, no matter how much they (and I) dislike him.
Steve
Ariadne
I quote one sentence only but there is plenty of illumination related
to Mayer's lack of sources and his reliance on discredited
"historians".
Goldhagen had no difficulty in demolishing Mayer's account of Auschwitz
Chris X
> Chris X wrote:
>> "Stephen Glynn" <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:2pjlf.15246$GC1....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>>I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
>>>Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
>>>isn't, AFAIK, charged with advocating violence or incitement to hatred.
>>>
>>>Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
>>
>> (Snip mealy-mouthed drivel and slavish endorsement of the Big Lie !)
>>
>> Thanks for posting this, it's *very* interesting. Is it Ok if I repost it
>> elsewhere ? I will, of course, remove your name from it.
>>
> Certainly you may, though I would appreciate your taking my name off it.
> Here's the non-reply I received today to my point about the comparison
> with their attitudes to David Irving and to 'indirect incitement to
> terrorism':
Cheers !
(Snip response)
Big Pete
One of the reasons that Amnesty said that they wouldn't help Mr Irving is
because they say that he is "alleging that the extensive documentation of
the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying".
The fact is that no one believes that everyone involved in the holocaust is
telling the truth.
In fact you yourself started your posting with the words "Not a reputable
source."
Do you think that Mayer should be in prison?
Farmer Giles
I know that you've recently got yourself a part-time job in the courts, as
an usher or something, so now you're a legal expert. But if you genuinely
believe what you've written above then you must still believe you've got
fairies at the bottom of the garden. The law in this country is a
disgraceful sham - purely there to protect the establishment and to provide
rich pickings for the legal profession. A hit-and-miss system at best, with
a shameful record of miscarriages of justice and completely useless at
preventing ever increasing levels of crime.
Ariadne
Big Pete wrote:
> Lets make the point that is being made very clear.
>
> One of the reasons that Amnesty said that they wouldn't help Mr Irving is
> because they say that he is "alleging that the extensive documentation of
> the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying".
>
> The fact is that no one believes that everyone involved in the holocaust is
> telling the truth.
There are very few frauds and there is a massive amount of
evidence available. Irving is the liar - as not only I have said.
> In fact you yourself started your posting with the words "Not a reputable
> source."
>
Mayer is not a reputable source. Read the page I posted the link to.
He was respected but got lost.
> Do you think that Mayer should be in prison?
That depends on whether he has broken the laws of the country
he is in. I imagine he is in USA and is in no danger of imprisonment
for his production of lies to date.
The particular circumstance of European countries that do imprison
people for holocaust denial is their guilt at their own involvement in
genocide in WWII. They don't want any resurgence of Nazism.
Ariadne
Big Pete wrote:
> Lets make the point that is being made very clear.
>
> One of the reasons that Amnesty said that they wouldn't help Mr Irving is
> because they say that he is "alleging that the extensive documentation of
> the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying".
>
> The fact is that no one believes that everyone involved in the holocaust is
> telling the truth.
There are very few frauds and there is a massive amount of
evidence available. Irving is the liar - as not only I have said.
> In fact you yourself started your posting with the words "Not a reputable
> source."
>
Mayer is not a reputable source. Read the page I posted the link to.
He was respected but got lost.
> Do you think that Mayer should be in prison?
That depends on whether he has broken the laws of the country
Robert Henderson
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
>Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
>
>Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
The letter from Amnesty highlights the weakness of the liberal-left
when it comes to censorship and, indeed, human rights in general.
Amnesty claims there are universal human rights but in practice only
wishes those rights to apply to those of whom they approve.
It is more important to defend the rights of those of whom one
disapproves for a very simple reason: if they are not defended the
natural consequence is the subordination of the minority by the
majority. Worse, in the modern state, the power of those who rule is so
vast that they can suppress at least publicly any view with which they
disapprove. Unless there is a culture that all views are permitted a
society has no guard against such behaviour. Free expression is a
natural guard against tyranny because no tyrant can stand against free
criticism.
The argument of the liberal-left that some views must be suppressed
because otherwise horrors such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan massacre
will occur miss the point: they only take place where a ruling elite
have managed to suppress free debate and made their voice the only one
to be heard in public. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Jason P
Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <2pjlf.15246$GC1....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >I wrote to them asking why they'd refused to take up the case of David
> >Irving who, objectionable and wrong-headed though he certainly is,
> >isn't, AFAIK, charged with advocating violence or incitement to hatred.
> >
> >Here's their reply, with which I'm not particularly impressed.
>
> The letter from Amnesty highlights the weakness of the liberal-left
> when it comes to censorship and, indeed, human rights in general.
> Amnesty claims there are universal human rights but in practice only
> wishes those rights to apply to those of whom they approve.
>
> It is more important to defend the rights of those of whom one
> disapproves for a very simple reason: if they are not defended the
> natural consequence is the subordination of the minority by the
> majority. Worse, in the modern state, the power of those who rule is so
> vast that they can suppress at least publicly any view with which they
> disapprove. Unless there is a culture that all views are permitted a
> society has no guard against such behaviour. Free expression is a
> natural guard against tyranny because no tyrant can stand against free
> criticism.
I fully agree! The first thing tyrants do is abridge the rights of free
speech in their respective societies -- i.e. the Athenian tyrant Draco
in ancient Greece, hence the English word "draconian."
There are more than one side to every version of history, thus if you
know history well you know all history is somehow revisionist; people
like Irving must be allowed to have divergent opinion from the official
Zionist world's version.
This is the center of all Zionist hypocrisy! Once Zionist emotions of
the day deny Irving his right to have his anti-Holocaust point of view
they, in the very same stroke, deny the Zionists their right to refute
him. In some Austrian or German court 'rulings' declaring Irving's work
to be bias based and therefore the "rhetoric of hatred" these are the
exact same things as declaring tyrannical rule over people that "court"
decides to disapprove -- clearly skewed politics and not jurisprudence.
These tyrannical and draconian methods overstep the bounds of any FAIR
'legal system' and they allow future courts somewhere to do the same
things to people who write about a counter and self-righteous Zionist
perspective.
This if not fairly resolved will in time be the death of all Zionistic
strategies.
Jason P
..So they resort to draconian, and tyrannical, methods that are clearly
political; they have nothing to do with fair, even-handed, blind
justice and appropriate jurisprudence.
Saddam Hussein did no less!
Big Pete
> people for holocaust denial is their guilt at their own involvement in
> genocide in WWII. They don't want any resurgence of Nazism.
Well that depends upon who you mean by 'they'.
Jews are all for nationalism when it's Israel, but against it out side of
Israel.
Holocaust 'denile' has nothing to do with guilt as it's very popular in the
middle east as well.
The fact is most intelligent people can work out that the established story
of WWII is not an accurate view of history.
Stephen Glynn
I've believed this very strongly ever since I worked in a place where it
certainly didn't apply -- Russia during the early '90s. There,
certainly, there weren't any effective laws or courts for several years.
It was purely a matter of who you could afford to pay off and, at
times, how much fire-power you were known to be able to deploy if you
had to (unless, of course, the other guy could bid more for it). That
certainly made me appreciate what we've got here.
Steve
Farmer Giles
Of course it is true that there are many countries with legal systems far
worse than ours, but that doesn't mean that our courts operate as they
should. Nor does it validate the high-minded wittering of those who posture
endlessly about 'British justice'.
You say our courts are "one of the few institutions in this country that
manage [to] maintain their independence and who insist on proof and evidence
before they convict or acquit". Please tell me of the other 'institutions'
that fail to do this?
Stephen Glynn
think, many Government departments when they're making administrative
decisions that depend on an assessment of the facts in the individual's
case.
Steve
Farmer Giles
I cannot think of any other institution that has the power to 'convict or
acquit' - and certainly not without needing sufficient evidence. The media
may often make spurious claims, but can be subjected to the law itself if it
does so unjustly or without justification - or otherwise defames.
Anyway, this thread is not about the courts - which you chose to introduce -
it is about David Irving. During the course of which GS brought up the issue
of the sentencing disparity between the two recent racial murders - a better
example of the way our courts have become tools of the political
establishment would be hard to find.
Stephen Glynn
It was George, I think, who introduced the topic of the courts to this
thread. I don't particularly want to rehearse that argument yet again
here, but I would make the following point. The trial, as far as I can
tell, lasted for several weeks -- it seems to have started on October 10
and it finished on November 22. Press coverage seems, by and large, to
have been limited to the prosecution's opening statement, a summary of
the what one of the prosecution witnesses said one of the gang had said
to her (without any details of the cross-examination) and the verdict
and part of the judge's sentencing remarks.
Given that you've only seen a tiny fraction -- literally -- of the
evidence, what makes you so certain that the police, CPS and the judge
*must* have colluded to become 'tools of the political establishment'?
Why do you reject the very possibility that the judge considered all
the evidence he'd heard over the six weeks and it led him to the
conclusion that it wouldn't be safe to conclude the murder was racially
motivated? Quite possibly he got it wrong, but I'd at least want to see
a summary of the whole evidence before I decided that for certain.
Steve
Farmer Giles
What you decide is up to you, but I have no similar misgivings, the whole
thing stinks to high heaven. As does the case of those 'suspects' in the
Stephen Lawrence case (innocent by all the tenets of our so-called justice
system) who were given an 18 months sentence for (allegedly) throwing a beer
can at an off duty police officer - no witnesses, no nothing, except the
word of the police officer. 'Independent' courts, you must be joking. Strip
away the wigs and gowns, and all the pompous ceremonial, and you reveal a
system as crooked and rigged as many a tin-pot banana republic.
Stephen Glynn
How, then, do you account for the fact that Government quite often finds
itself frustrated and infuriated by the refusal of the Court of Appeal
and the Law Lords to behave themselves and do what the Home Secretary
wants them to? That's not what I associate with banana republics.
Steve
Farmer Giles
> >
> >
> > What you decide is up to you, but I have no similar misgivings, the
whole
> > thing stinks to high heaven. As does the case of those 'suspects' in the
> > Stephen Lawrence case (innocent by all the tenets of our so-called
justice
> > system) who were given an 18 months sentence for (allegedly) throwing a
beer
> > can at an off duty police officer - no witnesses, no nothing, except the
> > word of the police officer. 'Independent' courts, you must be joking.
Strip
> > away the wigs and gowns, and all the pompous ceremonial, and you reveal
a
> > system as crooked and rigged as many a tin-pot banana republic.
> >
> >
>
> How, then, do you account for the fact that Government quite often finds
> itself frustrated and infuriated by the refusal of the Court of Appeal
> and the Law Lords to behave themselves and do what the Home Secretary
> wants them to? That's not what I associate with banana republics.
>
Probably depends on just what it is that the Home Secretary wants to do.
But, anyway, the oldest trick in the book when you rig the evidence is not
to have it all pointing in the same direction.