Another nail in the coffin of Free Speech


David Davis

I will start by saying that it is very juvenile, and also flies in the face of historical fact and actually existing records created in detail by the people-Immolators Themselves, to deny that The Holocaust took place. It is a pointless and futile act, in some cases I am sure designed only to get attention.

That said, it ought not to be a crime, anywhere at all, especially in Germany and Austria for the mmost clear of Classical Liberal and liberty-relevant reasons, to deny these facts. Mountebanks, idiots, and sad people with self-constructed axes to grind, ought to be allowed to say what they believe. Perhaps even a honing of the truth and a better understanding of it will come about as a result. Also perhaps not. But the liberty to say what one thinks is paramount. Sean Gabb did a large piece on holocaust Denial a while ago, here. It already has 243 comments.

But today we learn that an Australian person has been sentenced to a period in chokey for Holocaust Denial. I can’t see the point of this, can you?

Furthermore, what is Australia, a supposedly sensible and down-to-earth country, doing behaving like that?

The way to avoid States making laws that say things like Holocaust Denial is a crime, is for there to be

(1) less powerful States, and

(2) better people.

Unfortunately, people can only become better by

(a) knowing in advance what is good and what is bad, and

(b) staying awake more.

This all presupposes that there must be such a thing as Absolute Morality, and what I guess I’d call “Objective Good” and “Objective Evil”, and so it rather cuts the ground from under the feet of

(i) Socialists,

(ii) Other forms of moral relativist.

Afterthought….about the sort of people who make Holocaust Denial a crime: AND could the MPs’-expenses fleabag-bag-of-scumbags’ stories get any better? We hope so….and we await.

About these ads

16 responses to “Another nail in the coffin of Free Speech

  1. John Blainey

    It does seem a bit unrealistic that the truth/reality needs a law to protect it. I had the idea it was about the most durable, robust commodity that there is. It survives all the profound obfuscation and lies from extremely competent and well paid manipulators that it does, even if it does get a bit hazy at times, with verylittle help from anyone.

  2. Bodwyn Wook

    David Irving notably came up with loads of wonderful warts and all stuff on these vaunted WW II generals in Europe, an absolute load of pricks and the worst egomaniacs and fools on the face of the Earth, old women and howling hysterics. It is a real contribution to the one-day realisation of how much warfare is but another branch of the entertainment industry run by states for these defectives, in objectively /exactly/ the same way Baby Peter’s parents were dished cash and vouchers by the Herringtail & Fishguts council.

    That said, Irving /is/ rather off the deep end on the WW II mass killings. I expect therefore it is possible that he has been put out like a kind of staked goat by certain /other/ venomous cranks, these not Nazis, to make anyone who questions the viability of Israel look like, approximately, some kind of an asshole , or “antisemitic.”

  3. Oddly this Toben bloke is being done for contempt of court which makes me suspect there’s no actual law against what he said, but it’s a slight worry that the Australian Constitution doesn’t protect something as basic as free speech (actually it has very little to say about freedom of Australia’s citizens). Still, not as bad as having an actual law banning Holocaust denial – has it not occurred to German legislators that banning a viewpoint that disagrees with prevailing views in their society is the sort of thing the Nazis would have done? Let the Holocaust deniers speak and make fools of themselves. I’ve been to Belsen and read Five Chimneys – I don’t need the Federal govt/court gagging the twats and then locking up the ones who won’t shut up.

  4. John Blainey

    It is strange. Israel is on the brink of being destroyed by the foreign policy of just about every government in the world if it does not, now, fight for its life. The only options it is being given will destroy it as a country. Why would those who go to such lengths to prosecute Holocaust denial allow the state of Israel to be destroyed? Such a happening would result in the death of many Israelis.

  5. “Restoring Enforceable Human Rights enforcement to the UN: Karen McDonald, writing for CFR”

    Righting the Wrongs of the UN’s Top Human Rights Body

    Author:
    Kara C. McDonald, International Affairs Fellow in Residence

    May 13, 2009

    Kara C. McDonald

    To date, the debate surrounding the three-year-old UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has focused largely on its anti-Israeli bias and whether the United States should run for membership. The Bush administration argued that the HRC’s first years were enough to demonstrate that it is no more credible than its predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission, and that membership would legitimate the body’s work. With a permanent agenda item resulting in twenty-one resolutions against Israel and little or no substantive work on any of the most egregious human rights abusers, it’s hard to defend the council’s record. The Obama administration, which has stressed diplomatic engagement, decided that the United States cannot be absent from the UN’s premier human rights body and should seek to improve its record from within. The UN General Assembly’s May 12 election of the United States to a three-year term is a potential first step, but absent a comprehensive strategy to reform the UN’s human rights architecture, including the scheduled reappraisal of the HRC itself, U.S. membership will become a sideshow.

    The HRC was created in 2006 to replace the UN Human Rights Commission, a body widely discredited as a “coalition of abusers.” The United States took a lead role in negotiating the successor body, but voted against the resolution creating the HRC due in part to continued concern about the ability of rights-abusing states to become members. Despite the checkered history of the UN’s human rights bodies, founding human rights instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are a positive legacy, and continue to provide a vision for the work of the UN’s human rights bodies.

    What Can Membership in the HRC Achieve?

    Some rights watchdogs believe that the United States, by its long-standing authority on human rights issues, will be able to sway the work of the HRC toward more serious human rights review. This is unlikely for two reasons. First, the perception that the United States holds a unique authority in human rights issues is largely defunct due to ongoing questions related to its recent interrogation and detention practices. The U.S. government should be prepared for heavy criticism of its own human rights record during upcoming HRC sessions and the Universal Periodic Review to which all members are subject during their tenure.

    “Absent a comprehensive strategy to reform the UN’s human rights architecture, including the scheduled reappraisal of the HRC itself, U.S. membership will become a sideshow.”

    Second, the composition of the HRC is weighted toward Africa and Asia regional bloc dominance; these blocs together hold twenty-six votes, a majority on the body of forty-seven, and they have clearly demonstrated an avoidance of rights oversight and support for singling out Israel. Bloc voting provides states mutual protection from human rights criticism. It is therefore hard to imagine this HRC conducting any serious human rights review. It is true that the United States as a member will be able to request special sessions, which only require one-third of the membership’s support, and to call for votes. This may afford some increased action (statements, resolutions, and special sessions) on rights-abusing states like Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. While not irrelevant, these successes will be of only marginal gain as long as governments can continue to block scrutiny of their own rights records. So what else can membership achieve?

    Navigating Reforms

    The administration must devise a comprehensive and long-term approach to its goals for the UN’s human rights architecture. This approach should include the following elements:

    * Name as a matter of urgency an experienced ambassador to the U.S. mission in Geneva and push for quick Senate confirmation. The administration’s mantra of a “new era of engagement” will be judged by how effective its engagements are. Engagement must produce results. Undertaking new membership in the HRC without a high-level ambassador leading the charge will result in the United States being outmaneuvered by regional ringleaders like Egypt, South Africa, and Pakistan.

    * Begin a high-level dialogue with human rights allies to forge a common vision for the UN’s human rights apparatus and a strategy to achieve it in coming years. The first step toward systemic change is the mandated review by 2011 of the HRC. The U.S. government should orient its strategy toward preparing the ground, cultivating the expertise necessary, and building relationships for the upcoming battle to document honestly the HRC’s deficiencies and to build consensus for change.

    * Develop as part of this comprehensive approach a strategy to secure the support of like-minded countries on the HRC and to engage moderate members of the Asia and Africa blocs through bilateral relationships in capitals.

    * Focus on ways to decrease the predominance of regional dynamics. One option would be the introduction of secret balloting to allow countries to vote their conscience rather than as pressured by others in their region. An examination of lessons learned from other multilateral and UN bodies that are independent of voting bloc politics, such as the UN Peacebuilding Commission, may also provide suggestions for how to reform the HRC.

    * Examine the role of other human rights bodies at the United Nations. The United States should consider how to preserve the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and increase its in-country monitoring and technical assistance. It should also strategize how to raise the regional and international security implications of gross human rights abusers in the UN Security Council.

    To secure the investment of U.S. membership in the HRC, the administration must move quickly to devise a plan to resurrect the vision and energy of the UN’s founding human rights mandate. A successful revamping of the UN human rights architecture would reassure those concerned about the direction of this administration’s engagement with repressive states, prove that engagement as a policy can produce results, and demonstrate the administration’s commitment to rights as a foreign policy priority.

    Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.

  6. Socialists (at least of the significant type) aren’t moral relativists. They’re moral absolutists. What they are doing is not abolishing a moral code, they are rewriting and replacing the old moral code with a new one. As this clearly indicates. They create an illusion of being wild and free-thinkin’ liberals, but they are the exact opposite. So, for instance, they appear to be moral “relativists” because they will usual relativistic arguments (as they will use any argument which furthers their cause, regardless of whether they believe it or not) to promote, say, homosexuality (“it is not for us to judge”) but replace it with a strict moral code in which it is taboo to hold any view on homosexuality which is not theirs.

    Their absolutism regarding holocaust deniers is not a desire for historical truth. It is about the imposition of a view of history on marxist and post-marxist lines; all of history must be seen through the filters of sexism, racism, imperialism and oppression. They do not persecute holocaust deniers through any love of the Jews- they hate the Jews, and use the code-word “Zionists” to excuse their hatred- but because it is the lynchpin of the “all history is racism” hegemonic discourse thingy. The holocaust is the proof that white western civilisation is evil and must perish.

    Libertarianism is, in a sense, morally relativist. It says “do as thou wilt, so long as you don’t hurt others and don’t expect any automatic help if it messes you up”. Socialism is the very opposite- strictly absolutist in all things.

  7. Bodwyn Wook

    Well, that’s a jolly dollop of analytical trifle and poison, but real tasty and insightful too. All power systems need a ‘preferred’ vocabulary. Among other things, it facilitates credentiallisation. If your stomach isn’t turned by the BS (and you are good at memorisation) you’ll probably be a pretty good apparatchik. People with more uneasy digestions in the present set-up are for clientisation, and clysters and stomach rinses in Detention Number 47 NHS Rectification Hospital & Palliatory.

    The sex trinket is just a cheap and nasty diversionary gimmick, in effect. Marianne Faithfull sang in 1986 about ‘fucking, footer and Tee Vee makes you all think you’re so fucking free’.

    As to the Jews, I think ‘letting them’ hare off to Palestine after Hitler was the most rotten thing when you think about it. To have let Jews too have their innings finally /in/ Europe where they’d been to home for fifteen hundred years, ‘Palestining’ some of these God-damn Huns around notably, would have been more like it.

    • Like that Bodwyn – wonder why we didn’t think of it, instead of nuremberging them? We could have sent their top guys to, say, Ramallah, in their full uniforms…

      Come to think of it I know why not! They’d have been welcomed by the “palestin” “ians”.

  8. Hmmmm…..

    If someone stood up and said that World War One had never actually happened, and that saying that HAD happened was a vast conspiracy, would ANYONE take any notice of them?

    Would anyone here?

    Isn’t a horse-laugh the appropriate response?

    Next, saying Osama bin Scapegoat didn’t plot the destruction of the three WTC towers, and the killing of 160 military staffers at the Pentagon will be made illegal.

    You can FEEL them fingering their statute books as of right now…

    Tony Hollick

  9. John Blainey

    Melanie Phillips:
    Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardize their standing with America’s elite.

    But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.

    This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.

  10. Not with my life they won’t…

    Ever,

    Tony Hollick

    PS: Fasten your seat belts — you never had a trip like this before…

  11. Albright claimed the loss of hundreds thousands Iraqi children was “worth the effort”; Cheney and Rice claimed PUBLICLY “tortures happened within legality after all”, etc.
    Of course they tell us victims were a mere few…
    Now according to the knee-jerk Hitler response, we ought to have had a mob of indignant unwashed storming public buildings screaming ‘never again’ to the top of their lungs and demanding justice…did that happen? NO.
    What about the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ claim?
    Both Bush & Blair timidly admitted it was false, of course playing it down as being ‘misled’ by incompetent intelligence etc etc.
    That false claim justified the invasion of a country and important losses among civilians.
    Now according to the knee-jerk Hitler response, we ought to have had a mob of indignant unwashed storming public buildings screaming ‘never again’ to the top of their lungs and demanding justice…did that happen? NO.
    Did the Reagan administration not only condone, but fund and abet Saddam Hussein’s Irak while it used chemical weapons against Iran?

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/20/sbm.documents/

    Now according to the knee-jerk Hitler response, we ought to have had a mob of indignant unwashed storming public buildings screaming ‘never again’ to the top of their lungs and demanding justice…did that happen? NO.
    What does this tell you?
    Meanwhile, the same social alchemists and mountebanks (Jews AND non-Jews ) who during the sixties were screaming for freedom of speech demand more repressive laws.
    Much as during the Weimar Republic (socialdemocratic & moderate ), precedents are set that an eventual new regime won’t hesitate to exploit: Hitler only exploited ‘special laws’ in force.
    The irony is that Hitler’s fall was to stop all special laws, ad-hoc tribunals, political trials, industrial scale eavesdropping…
    Sure…smile to the camera next time you go to the mall.

  12. Another interesting fact.
    While most accredited pundits squeal in agony at the methods revisionists use (the good old hair splitting and detail busting of old Perry Mason series ), didn’t big brother use JUST THE SAME METHODS to ‘debunk’ the U.N report that announced a high number of casualties among Iraqi civilians?
    Rows of learnt pundits (for the mere sake of truth, what else?) worked to ‘prove’ that the ‘facts’ and/or ‘numbers’ in the U.N report were overblown and/or based on partisan or unreliable accounts…how grotesque is that?
    None went to prison for hate crimes over that…

  13. John Blainey

    I seem to detect that Libertarian has been invaded by mainstream leftwing mind control such as previous two comments which unfortunately have the same initials as myself. Perhaps Dr Tame would now be in great distress at the ease with which deception is invading the search for truth. You are going to need greater self discipline and integrity.
    Nevermind. GW may have halted Iraq in its nuclear tracks but Iran is all set to finish that race and then we can enjoy the great white light. Well, for a very short while.
    Bye.

  14. *********************
    Nevermind. GW may have halted Iraq in its nuclear tracks but Iran is all set to finish that race and then we can enjoy the great white light. Well, for a very short while.
    ***********************

    What is your option?
    A world government ‘for our own good’?
    Other crusades to ‘free Europe from the Huns’ [to give it to the Soviets and bellyache about it for 50 years calling them all sorts of names?].
    Speaking of world government (with a ‘true’ international high court in Jerusalem, perhaps?), wasn’t America a driving force behind the decommissioning of colonial empires (that were not its own, that is)?
    Any of the egg-headed pundits whose gums bleed for us had any idea what would happen…or were they really convinced ‘neo-colonialism’ would work perfectly?
    Ever examined that many third world maximalist leaders had been schooled in the west?
    Who opened the gates of full course FREE scholarships for people in countries that were once ‘good’…?
    Didn’t they think those countries could turn ‘bad’?
    Hadn’t Khomeini found sanctuary in Paris as poor refugee persecuted for nothing?
    Boy…some people DO change opinion more often than underwear…