Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years
Hypocrisy? Yes.
That said, at least there is a pretence to civilized manor. When the Cartoon debacle started I said that though I was offended I was not moved enough to join any boycotts. I argued that utilizing a consumer based boycott was a legitimate means of voicing opinion and getting something that is important to you done. Most in the West are quick to discount that but no one gets to draw the board on which the world plays. Some things are important to some in a way others can not fathom and it is completely within their rights to pursue means, ends, and limitations to those factors that mean so much to them.
I also stressed that as long as they remain non violent they are completely within their rights. What happened next… well no one I know, or want to know, is going to defend that.
To me it is utterly ridicules that someone be imprisoned, be it for scholarly or malicious intent, under “federal law that makes it a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.” or any other piece of history. But it was important enough for some Jews, WWII survivors, and descendants of victims to lobby to get these laws instigated. It’s non violent. Sure it’s a very thinly veiled assault on free speech that would never fly in the States but it is not violent. And that satisfies the one unanimous rule you should expect and demand of anyone and most importantly of yourself.
UPDATE:
An interesting and diverse round up of opinions on the matter by various European news outlets conducted by the BBC.
The Holocaust issue is very different.
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2006/02/when-can-muslims-get-treated-in-same.html (Comment this)
It isn't illegal to deny the Holocaust in Denmark. Jylland-Posten printed the Mohammed-cartoons. David Irving is behind bars in Austria. How does this make Jyllands-Posten hypocritical? Try to make some research before you speak out ok? (Comment this)
“The Holocaust issue is very different.”
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Says who? That’s what I meant by “no one gets to draw the board on which the world plays” There is no difference between the desire for respect to what people hold most dear. Using direct parallels (Mohamed/Moses) is silly. It’s about what is closest to heart and that’s different for everyone.
The parameters to acquiring that respect is what I was debating here. In layman’s terms; these animalistic reactions in Pakistan and Iran are idiotic. If these cartoons are so damn important why not lobby to make their reprint illegal (which I agree is as silly as the Holocaust denial ones). Any alternative to the violence.
Henrik:
I know Denmark doesn’t have these laws. I wasn’t referencing Denmark though if you would like an example of Danish hypocrisy look into why Rose was put on leave.
The mere mention that the paper may reprint the holocaust cartoons an Iranian paper is soliciting. Just mentioning the idea.
This is what I wrote about the Iranian Paper
http://onearabworld.blog.com/543798/
Then the paper goes and in essence fires the guy for mentioning his intent to reprint holocaust cartoons? Nothing could have vindicated the Iranian papers disgusting idea better. (Comment this)
Nouri (Comment this)
Just saying. (Comment this)
Rose isn't fired. He's on a "forced vacation". He's still editor of culture on Jyllands-Posten. And yes putting Rose on leave wasn't Jyllands-Postens finest hour. But i can't see how that makes JP hypocritical.
JP printed the cartoons because an author who wrote a childrens book about the life of Mohammed had difficulties finding someone who would make illustrations for his book. And when he finally did find somebody the illustrator demanded to be anonymous. The illustrators were all fearing for their lives. The purpose of the cartoons was merely to test if the illustrators in Denmark really imposed selfcensorship on themselves when it came to dealing with islam. The task that JP made for the illustrators was merely to draw Mohammed as the illustrators saw him.
2-3 of the cartoons are actually critical JP's errand (the boy in front of the blackboard, the guy with an orange in his turban, the mugshot). I could elaborate if you want me to. Two comments of fear the the cartoonists live in. 3 of them are neutral. It's just 4 of them that are "Mohammed-critical".
The point i'm trying to make is that you risk your live when you critize or condemn Islam/Mohammed in Denmark. You risk your reputation if you deny the Holocaust.
I disagree with Karen Armstrong. All oponions, all religious dogma should be critised even though some could take offence of it. And i don't think that the freedom of speech i "sacred". It is however a prerequsite for democracy and for the scientific breakthrough.
(Comment this)
That will constitute a problem though. There are over 6 billion people on earth and they hold zillions of things dear to their hearts, if you took them all into consideration, you will simply stiffle free speech at all.
The Mohammed/Moses comparison is valid ya Karim. Because we use the religion yardstick to measure what happened. We say "don't we respect Jesus and Moses?". Yet few of them over there don't respect Mohammed and Moses and they have the right to do so. (Comment this)
"JP printed the cartoons because an author who wrote a childrens book about the life of Mohammed had difficulties finding someone who would make illustrations for his book".
Do you really believe Jyllandsposten's BS. It is generally known in Denmark that Jyllandsposten is a reactionary newspaper. In the 1930's it supported Danish nazi views. The main reason it printed the cartoons is that it sells papers. Jyllandsposten is riding on a wave of anti-immigrant feelings that have been started by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which is at the moment the main support in parliament of the liberal-conservative Danish government. It has nothing to do with defense of freedom of speech. Jyllandsposten has itself spoken against publishing pictures critical of Jesus.
The Irving sentence shows that there are limits to freedom of speech - in my opinion much too heavy in this case. In Denmark you can question holocaust if you want to.
But even in Denmark there are certain boundaries to freedom of speech. There is a blasphemy article in the penal code. The penalty is only up to 4 months of imprisonment. Maybe it will be used against the editor of Jyllandsposten. The attorney general in Copenhagen is examining the case and he may decide to prosecute. (Comment this)
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Says who?"
Says the difference between a cartoon and a history book (the latter is supposed to be truthful) and the fact that Austria does not demand that Muslim countries not make up their own laws limiting free speech.
If, say, Saudi Arabia has a law against Muhammed cartoons I have no objective problem with it. Likewise if Austria decides to outlaw lies in history books.
Subjectively I might be more against the one than the other, of course. (Comment this)
So what? The paper changed sides. These things happen. I assume the editors of then are all dead by now. (Comment this)
So in Turkey you can go to prison for telling the truth and in the EU you can go to prison for telling a lie.
And you find it funny that the EU would see a difference between the two? (Comment this)
I just find the whole thing ridiculous.
A Danish Xtian (or secularist) makes a statement about free press and the first reaction is "What about the Jews" the Holocaust, the Torah, whether or not they "suck blood of Arab kids" are trying to take over the world etc... etc...
The Arab world is more obssessed with jews than any living subset of people on the planet. Most Jewish people I know don't talk about joooos even 1/10th as much as Arabs do. And 95% of Arabs have never even met a f***ing person who is even Jewish!!
(Comment this)
As for economically boycotting all of Denmark for the actions of a single paper, thats very interesting. After 911 (and the 4,000 terrorist attacks since) the Islamic world have been asking the western world not condemn all muslims for the actions of a few terrorist.
But as soon as a cartoon appears in one paper, its time to punish those damn Danish dairy farmers! They are all in on it... now thats hypocrisy! (Comment this)
People usually mix cards when they talk about freedom of speech & then relating it with the Holocaust.
Now there are many in Europe who think the Holocaust is exaggerated & over blown, some deny it ever happened & yet they are not persecuted so why would this happen with David Irving? In my opinion because of the responsibility he holds. Most people are average & their opinions reflect their own limited ideas, they can believe what they want & say what they want largely because their effect is limited & they are not experts on the subject.
But David Irving is a professor & has an academic responsibility to back his assumptions & theory with good logic & as many evidence as he can. Anyone in the streets of Europe can say what they belive about ww2 or the end of communism but it reflects his own ideas & they are his own alone, he doesnt become an authority on the subject, thats why we have historians who are responsible to correct any false historic precepts but with substantial evidence.
Think of it as a patient with a sickness who is advised by a friend to take a medicine which affects him negatively, that friend wont be held responsible as a doctor would be had he given that faulty prescription.
(Comment this)
It seems to me that you've totally missed the point regarding the free speech issue. There is no hypocrisy when you take a deeper look at what drives policy.
As you know, there are, in fact, some limitations to free speech even in the most democratic places. People are not free to use speech to yell fire in a theater, or to incite others to riot. The underlying rationale for this is that speech must not be used to commit a massive threat to public safety. In parts of Europe, Nazism is, in fact, a sociopatholgy -- a genie they corked and never wish to release out of its bottle again. This isn't about Jews. It's about Nazism, an ideology which wrought utter ruin upon Europe.
So you see, I'm afraid you've gotten it all wrong. This is not about double standards on behalf of Jews compared to Muslims. It's not about favoring one group's sensibilities and sanctities over another's. It's about certain European nations making sure Nazism is kept totally toothless in order to guarantee wide-spread public safety. This is why they criminalize Holocaust denial, not because Jews get special priveleges Muslims don't.
Hope this helps. (Comment this)
Here is yet another example of the Western hypocrasy and bias towards the Jews:
London Mayor Suspension
The difference between the Muslims and the Jews is that the Jews don't need to get up and shout about anything that bothers them, they have enough control and power using the "holocaust-gun" every single time someone bothers them they would seem as peacful and civilised community. On the other hand, a simple visit a group of imams wanted to make with the Danish prime minister was refused, he didn't even want to meet them. And that was before all the demonstrations. He never gave them a voice to begin with and when Iran decided to print anti-holocaust cartoons, they were called by the west as "disgusting and offensive". Double standards and hypocrasy if I've ever seen one.
Secondly, about the cartoons being freedom of speech and history being undeniable fact, I will have to quote Karim, "says who?" In the USSR, their version of history is undeniable fact, in the Arab world, we have an amazing version of history glorifying the leader and it's called "undeniable fact". If the West is going to walk in the footsteps of dictators and tyrants, and call their version of history undeniable fact and prosecute anyone who denies it, then don't come whinning to me about free speach for in this case, you can only say and do what you want as long as you say and do what your western regime wants. (Comment this)