Who's rules?

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:04:41 GMT

You're missing the point. 'Holocaust denier' is a portmanteau smear, it is intended to put lunatic neo Nazis and sober minded revisionist historians into the same category. No sane person doubts the atrocious mass murder of eastern European Jews during the war, however many sane people doubt the version of events which is presented to them as a table d'hote, no picking, no choosing, no questioning. So, the plaque that used to be fastened to the wall at Auschwitz said 4m dead, then it was revised by the Poles in the 1980's to 1.1m dead, if at any time in the period between the original figure being 'official' and the new 'official' figure, you had questioned that figure, and you lived in Germany of Austria, you were going to jail, end of. My point is NOT about the holocaust, it is about the fundamental difference in outlook between the traditional British tolerant approach and the altogether more repressive German model. The European arrest warrant at a stroke abolishes the right of free speech in our country.

Have a look at this, says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

RE: Who's rules?

Bob Russell — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:02:50 GMT

A large proportion of the countries in Europe have been responsible for committing atrocities at some stage or stages in history.

Denying or defending these actions is part of free speech. The British Empire was pretty good at killing as were all Empires. Pretty much part of our make up.

Learning to behave in a civilized manner is part of 'growing up'. IS/ISIS are at the level of mediaeval Europe.

Holocaust deniers just look pretty stupid IMO!

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:46:23 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] To bring all this stuff about Auschwitz into an EU debate is a bit weird. [/quote]

And who started it Evelyn? (Viewers simply scroll back)

You quoted a case and here's the evidence.

Put the car in reverse, state your case, but don't use this one.

Much has been said in this referendum debate and things are brought up, I was simply looking a little deeper in what was said, that's all

Neil

[/quote][quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] To bring all this stuff about Auschwitz into an EU debate is a bit weird. [/quote]

And who started it Evelyn? (Viewers simply scroll back)

[/quote]

Not I.

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]You quoted a case and here's the evidence.[/quote]

I did not quote a case. It does make a good example, though.

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

but both yourself and Gerry knew who you meant

[/quote]

I can't speak for Gerry, but I didn't mean any one particular person.

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"] In reality we can say what we like and the Germans can't extradite.[/quote]

You do something in "EU country X" that's a crime there..... something like conducting historical research and publishing the findings, say... or making a rude joke about someone in power... that's not a crime in the UK and might well be thought admirable. Then you come home. The X police can issue an European Arrest Warrant which means British police can – must – arrest you and shove you on a plane to X to be tried and imprisoned. No need for court hearings in the UK, not extradition as we know it.

I don't have enormous sympathy with anyone who knowingly breaks the laws of another country while in it..... brewing home-made wine, or driving a car while female, in Saudi Arabia, for instance.... but if you make it home the Saudis can't seize you and haul you off again.

This particular strand of this thread was about the European Arrest Warrant. I think I've made my point.

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:48:41 GMT

'Spain has also been repressed recently' LOL, tell me a time when Spain wasn't repressive and for how long ? As for the Spanish right/left outdoing each other in illiberal legislation, you make my point.

RE: Who's rules?

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:36:55 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"] These are countries which have no tradition of freedom but a long tradition of repression, persecution and censorship.

[/quote]

Id say you hardly can base free speech on the country tradition. Spain has been also repressed recently (Franco years) and now we see how the national far right imposed the 'ley mordaza' where you can be arrested for pretty much having a group of people talking in the street and the (also nationalistic but pro separatist) far left tries to make the Spanish language be removed from public institutions and services. I.e. Oblige to study in Catalan or Euskera in schools and Universities.

You can't definetely defend a one sided British pr EU position because you will always find that any legal definition of freedom will also come with a boundary.

RE: Who's rules?

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:29:45 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]If you're going to start throwing names about Neil then at least get it right. The person I would refer you to is the Jewish revisionist - David Cole[/quote]

OK , thankyou, I'll have a look

Would have been a little easier if you'd named the person on a previous thread, rather than the 2/3/4/5 of us going off on one.

Shall we call this a score draw and move on?

Neil

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:25:03 GMT

If you're going to start throwing names about Neil then at least get it right. The person I would refer you to is the Jewish revisionist - David Cole. He's been in hiding +/- most of his adult life due to death threats. This thread is not about the holocaust, it is about free speech, something we have fought for and valued since before the Civil War, if you're English, arguably from Magna Carta. The right to speak or to remain silent has been a cornerstone of our democracy from time immemorial, the trial scene in Schaefers 'A Man for all Seasons' revolves round just this. In Germany, Austria and now I believe France, simply questioning the details of the Holocaust is a crime, this is wrong and fundamentally un British. Just consider the history of Germany, Austria and France, not one of them even remotely democratic until the 19th century, Germany and Austria until the 20th. These are countries which have no tradition of freedom but a long tradition of repression, persecution and censorship.

RE: Who's rules?

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:19:49 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Under this thread's original theme, one might also mention the European Arrest Warrant – which looks at first a jolly good idea. Then you work out that it means, for instance, a UK citizen, a serious historian say, accused in Germany of "Holocaust Denial" can be extradited from the UK and imprisoned in Germany;[/quote]

Clever words Evelyn , but both yourself and Gerry knew who you meant

UK Citizen - Yes

Serious historian - well he was until he started inventing things

Can be extradited to Germany - Well can they?

I've just spent a W/E with friends who know a thing or 2 about British Law. In reality we can say what we like and the Germans can't extradite.

Cite the case Evelyn, don't use innuendo

Neil

PS Am I cross .... yes slightly

RE: Who's rules?

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:10:01 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] To bring all this stuff about Auschwitz into an EU debate is a bit weird. [/quote]

And who started it Evelyn? (Viewers simply scroll back)

You quoted a case and here's the evidence.

Put the car in reverse, state your case, but don't use this one.

Much has been said in this referendum debate and things are brought up, I was simply looking a little deeper in what was said, that's all

Neil

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:05:07 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

OK, after a W/E of reflection to which my intelligence has been questioned this may be of interest

The person in question is non other than David Irvine

[/quote]

I didn't know there was a "person in question".

I raised the serious matter of the European Arrest Warrant. Something quite important to bring into an "EU debate".

However, since you've raised this particular chap, I'd suggest that being [quote user="Neil Wheadon"]someone that few would ask to a dinner party.[/quote] hardly makes him a criminal and certainly does not remove his right to free speech, especially as he is a serious historian. To bring all this stuff about Auschwitz into an EU debate is a bit weird.

RE: Who's rules?

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:23:52 GMT

OK, after a W/E of reflection to which my intelligence has been questioned this may be of interest

The person in question is non other than David Irvine

Read about him and I would suggest anyone interested in this period should and he was renowned a decade or so ago as someone that few would ask to a dinner party.

One of his conclusions was

As to what evidence further led Irving to believe that the Holocaust never occurred, he cited The Leuchter report by Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Irving said in a 1999 documentary about Leuchter: "The big point [of the Leuchter report]: there is no significant residue of cyanide in the brickwork. That's what converted me. When I read that in the report in the courtroom in Toronto, I became a hard-core disbeliever".^[

To bring this into an EU debate and as a reason for the Germans to want to ask a few questions is an interesting twist and to be backs up the feelings of a Tory defector this morning who feels we are becoming just a little Xenophobic

Neil

RE: Who's rules?

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:59:42 GMT

[quote] Why do you single out Germany there, Francisco? Do you have something against Germany?

[/quote]

Nah. More MEPs

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:56:10 GMT

Although they can be scary......

www.youtube.com/watch

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:53:48 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] Are some historians deliberately trying to find a different blame into the Holocaust or downright denying it?[/quote]

Not necessarily either. Historians are concerned with finding the facts, the truth. Sometimes what they find sits embarrassingly awkwardly with "what we all know". By the way, I don't just mean David Irving.

Germany can have a law forbidding historical research and its publication if she wishes, a law on lèse-majesté if she wishes. The point is that with the European Arrest Warrant a UK citizen accused in Germany of one of those things can be arrested in the UK by British police and hauled off to Germany for trial – no extradition hearing or anything like that. It is not the same as ordinary extradition.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] Isn't Brexit just giving power away?[/quote]

One of the few things you've said that I would describe as a good point. But..... relinquishing a supposed power over twenty-something other countries, while very definitely escaping their power over us.... seems like a good choice to me. Why do you single out Germany there, Francisco? Do you have something against Germany? I don't. I love the country, and the people (mostly).

RE: Who's rules?

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:03:33 GMT

[quote]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] a UK citizen, a serious historian say, accused in Germany of "Holocaust Denial" can be extradited from the UK and imprisoned in Germany[/quote]

[/quote]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]With that sentence, and having the word 'correctly' included in it, you're pretty much publicly asserting it. Are you going to prison?[/quote]

No, Francisco, he isn't, because he isn't in Germany or Austria. In the UK we still defend free speech.

[/quote]

I still don't get it - not being sarcastic or anything here - genuinely don't get it. I must be a bit thick.

Despite my degree of thickness and 'leftyness' - I don't agree with Neal on 'prohibiting' digging into History, I don't think it is wrong. But again, I don't think Neal was prohibiting, maybe thinking... what's the point? Are some historians deliberately trying to find a different blame into the Holocaust or downright denying it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

If the title of this thread is 'Who rules?' The answer is clear: After Brexit, Germany and their allies are the top ones in Europe - Isn't Brexit just giving power away? Not very patriotic IMHO.

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:39:20 GMT

There are points in history, when something has been investigated enough, found to be morally and intellectually corrupt and consigned

Investigated enough, OMG, and who says when enough is enough. This is pure Leninism, forward progressive humanity, pass the sick bag.

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:32:37 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]There are points in history, when something has been investigated enough, found to be morally and intellectually corrupt and consigned. We don't need to revisit the case for eugenics or ethnic cleansing for instance to see if we've overlooked some dimension which serves a greater purpose.[/quote]

What a bizarre attitude. A historian is seeking the truth, neither more nor less. Hum, with your attitude we would still be blaming the Katyn massacre on the Germans.

RE: Who's rules?

J G Wray — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:01:44 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]

If you don't investigate it, how can you refute it, yours is the mindset of the inquisition, mine of the enlightenment.

[/quote]

There are points in history, when something has been investigated enough, found to be morally and intellectually corrupt and consigned. We don't need to revisit the case for eugenics or ethnic cleansing for instance to see if we've overlooked some dimension which serves a greater purpose.

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:55:11 GMT

If you don't investigate it, how can you refute it, yours is the mindset of the inquisition, mine of the enlightenment.

RE: Who's rules?

J G Wray — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:48:07 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]

The thing is there are certain things you don't dig into as an academic do you, because....well you don't, and words can be misunderstood especially by a different culture

I don't believe I'm reading this. There is nothing, absolutely nothing an academic should be prevented from/afraid of - investigating. You know Neil, it wasn't the stormtroopers or the SS that permitted the Nazi state to function, it was spineless clerks, doctors, public officials, army officers who didn't want to dig, because well ... you don't.

[/quote]

Eugenics?

RE: Who's rules?

J G Wray — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:47:08 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]

J G Wray Illiterate nonsense, try again.

[/quote]

Nope, still not offended

RE: Who's rules?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:06:23 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]

@Wray

If you can't answer the question/assertion, change it to whatever suits, you're a pompous self regarding bore, did anyone ever tell you that (recently I mean).

[/quote]I did, but I think I got away with it.

RE: Who's rules?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:06:15 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]The thing is there are certain things you don't dig into as an academic do you, because....well you don't,[/quote]

Don't you?

RE: Who's rules?

Neil Wheadon — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:06:05 GMT

I'll be glad when June 24th arrives

RE: Who's rules?

Gerry Henry — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:02:18 GMT

The thing is there are certain things you don't dig into as an academic do you, because....well you don't, and words can be misunderstood especially by a different culture