# Selective Amnesia



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=b562a77d-2e0d-4782-8e5e-88ee7fe0ddcc&p=1



> This week, David Irving, author of Hitler's War, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria for denying the Holocaust. Irving is appealing this sentence, but so are the prosecuting authorities, who would like to see Irving receive the maximum term of 10 years.
> Few tears will be shed for Irving personally. He is certainly guilty as charged. His recantation in court was unpersuasive and, even if it had been sincere, it would not have wiped out his long record of Holocaust denial.
> ...
> A more distinguished historian than Irving, Eric Hobsbawm, a lifelong communist and the author of many well-reviewed volumes of modern history, went further than denying the murder of millions of people in the Soviet Gulag. He justified this other holocaust.
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I liked this passage:


> We know that tens of millions of innocent people died in two holocausts. Yet we are acutely aware of one and relatively undisturbed by the other. We imprison the apologist for Hitler and elevate the defender of Stalin. We repeat "never again" about Nazi mass murder, but have an easy conscience about communist mass murder.
> This double standard is becoming untenable, however.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And we don't intervene or intervene inadequately as more of them happen.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Like Sudan?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

As some point the world is going to realize: making martyrs out of hatemongers just makes more hatemongers.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Yet we are acutely aware of one and relatively undisturbed by the other. ..."

If only they were the only two; even if we limit ourselves to the 20th Century, I can come up with at least one more that killed more than 6 million people, and who knows how many other racially motivated mass murders, albeit with fewer victims.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

gordguide said:


> I can come up with at least one more that killed more than 6 million people,


China? The *world's* biggest trading partner? Shhhhhh!!!

Imperial Japan, did it's share in that region during it's reign too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

1.2 billion died in "conflicts" SINCE WWII!!!!!

Where to even begin. The Congo conflict alone has killed millions yet we rarely hear much of Africa's WW.

Evolution appears not to have favoured the pacificist amongst us.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

And this one too, from the same article:


> Ron Rosenbaum, author of the 1998 book Explaining Hitler, explains this other pathology. The Left continued to exhibit, he wrote in the New York Observer three years ago, a "curious neutrality/denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocides -- in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered.


This is what you get you look for truth from those for whom the west and "Amerika" are evil, but for whom leftist regimes can do no wrong. Hobsbawm and Chomsky, both, fall into this class. It is pathetic how the "intellectual left" fall all over themselves to praise them.

Ironically, I could see our friend MacSpectrum quoting from Hobsbawm on other issues had he not first learned about his reprehensible views on the Soviet genocide. He can take some comfort in the fact that, although Hobsbawm (like Chomsky and a few others I'll not name here) has much unwarranted support, he also has a great many detractors and critics.

I also do not agree with the proposition that we are "acutely aware of [the Holocaust] and relatively undisturbed by the [Soviet genocide]" I think there is woeful ignorance of both among the general public, and those who are better informed are aware and "disturbed" by both.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> As some point the world is going to realize: making martyrs out of hatemongers just makes more hatemongers.


Irving's no martyr. If hatemongering is not publicly condemned, it ratifies the lies and propels them further. Holocaust denial, further, seeks to erase the victims — continuing and completing the original crime. People go to jail for far less than this.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Irving's no martyr. If hatemongering is not publicly condemned, it ratifies the lies and propels them further. Holocaust denial, further, seeks to erase the victims — continuing and completing the original crime.


Rubbish. The defenders of truth in a liberal democracy are the intellectuals, not the courts. Public condemnation doesn't require censorship.


nxnw said:


> People go to jail for far less than this.


Really? Who?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Rubbish, yourself. What you assert is a fairy tale view of free speech. Lines have to be drawn somewhere:

• Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
• Soliciting murder?
• Advocating crimes against a particular group by sowing hatred?

There are evil consequences to all of these acts by words. There is no magic protection to malevolent, evil acts, merely because they are done with ones mouth rather than one's fist.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Rubbish, yourself. What you assert is a fairy tale view of free speech. Lines have to be drawn somewhere:
> 
> • Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
> • Soliciting murder?
> ...


Gee, that's very convincing. :yawn: Too bad your argument looks like swiss cheese to me.

"Advocating violence" is against the law, and it's irrelevent whether there is a specific group or not. If I tell my wife "I'm going to kill you" I have broken a law. Groups have nothing to do with it.

You mention a "line being drawn." Where is this line? 

I'll tell you, since you clearly don't know. "Threatening or advocating or causing harm" is the line. That's because there is no difference between threatening violence and commiting violence. 

If threaten to beat you up if you don't give me all your money, I couldn't defend myself by saying "I did nothing violent. We were just talking! It's free speech!"

"Causing harm" can be interpreted pretty liberally. If I make a verbal or written contract with you, but back out later, you can sue for damages. Certainly, I can't defend myself by saying "it was free speech!" 

But David Irving has actually done none of these things, unlike Ernest Zundel (which is why he was deported.) He denied the Holocaust ever happened. But, he hasn't "threatened or advocated or caused harm" to anyone.

Holocause denial is a lie, not a threat of harm. It may be repugnant, but repugnant lies about history are common. Selectively picking a single point in history as "protected from lies" is unjustifiable.

Some interesting statements at Wikipedia about Irving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

*Arrest and trial in Austria

Irving was arrested by the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria on 11 November 2005, under a warrant issued in 1989. Irving knew that he was banned from Austria, in the words of his partner, Bente Hogh: "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."
Within two weeks of his arrest, Irving asserted through his lawyer that he acknowledged the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers. On 20 February 2006 he pleaded guilty to the charge of denying the Holocaust from two speeches in 1989. He said this was what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust. "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court. "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews", "I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place."
Irving was found guilty of Holocaust denial and sentenced to three years jail. Irving declared himself shocked by the verdict. He reportedly had already purchased a plane ticket home to London, believing the court would "not be stupid enough" to lock him up. 
Many feared that Irving could become a martyr for far-right activists and the issue also raised a debate on what grounds freedom of speech could be denied in democratic countries. Upon hearing of Irving's sentence to three years' imprisonment, noted Irving critic Deborah Lipstadt said, "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship… The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."
Currently (February 2006), Irving is in the Josefstadt Prison in central Vienna, awaiting appeal. He has stated that he will use time spent in prison to write his memoirs, entitled "Irving's War".*


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> And this one too, from the same article:This is what you get you look for truth from those for whom the west and "Amerika" are evil, but for whom leftist regimes can do no wrong. Hobsbawm and Chomsky, both, fall into this class. It is pathetic how the "intellectual left" fall all over themselves to praise them.
> 
> Ironically, I could see our friend MacSpectrum quoting from Hobsbawm on other issues had he not first learned about his reprehensible views on the Soviet genocide. He can take some comfort in the fact that, although Hobsbawm (like Chomsky and a few others I'll not name here) has much unwarranted support, he also has a great many detractors and critics.
> 
> I also do not agree with the proposition that we are "acutely aware of [the Holocaust] and relatively undisturbed by the [Soviet genocide]" I think there is woeful ignorance of both among the general public, and those who are better informed are aware and "disturbed" by both.


I ask you refran from guessing at whom I would quote.

If one were to use the number of films made about either topic as a gauge of public awareness, some googling finds;



> More than 170 films about the Holocaust have been made since 1989. Six more are out this fall.


CS Monitor, Nov. 22, 2002
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1122/p13s01-almo.html

and this comment from yadvashem


> Despite their historical omissions, deficiencies, and commercial motivation, American Holocaust films have helped to embed the Holocaust into the collective consciousness of American society. Today, many Americans display at least a basic knowledge of the Holocaust, which is, in part, a result of the impact of such films.


http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/magazine/data4/cinematic.html

The Famine-Genocide (Holodomor) in then Soviet Ukraine has been explored by very few films.

Duranty received a Pulizter for his reports denying the Holodomor;


> Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers' reports that people were starving. "Conditions are bad, but there is no famine," he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the "mess" of collectivization. "But — to put it brutally — you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
> ...
> The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding "no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception" in the 1931 reporting that won the prize


http://www.nytco.com/company-awards-pulitzer-note.html

Makes me ill that someone was awarded a Pulitzer for denying the death of millions.

Russia denies Holodomor;


> Roman Serbyn, professor of history and a Ukrainian expert at the University of Quebec in Montreal
> ...
> Russia opposes designation as genocide, he says, and "the biggest reason is national pride. But also the political and economic consequences... if you recognise a crime you might have to pay compensation".
> 
> In 2003 Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin, was quoted by Interfax news agency dismissing talk of an apology or compensation, saying: "We're not going to apologise... there is nobody to apologise to."


www.law.whittier.edu/pdfs/holocaust/HGAL.pdf

I look forward to the day of a feature film examing the Holodomor to shed more light on this horrific crime against humanity, so the apologists and those that deny it ever happened would be exposed.

Lest we forget.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Your thesis was that words are inviolate, and I have responded that your thesis is simplistic. 

You acknowledge now that there is a line and you propose to draw it at "advocating violence". What about advocating hate? That's where I draw it (and where the Criminal Code draws it, too). Hate mongering — by telling malicious lies about an identifiable group — seeks to dehumanize its victims and to characterize them as dangerous or enemies. If you have your eyes open, you know where that leads, not only in Nazi Germany. Rwanda is another fine example. 

Now, about Irving changing his mind when he saw Eichmann's files, the Holocaust was the most thoroughly documented genocide in history — and thoroughly documented by its purveyors! The Nazis meticulously designed death factories with gas chambers and incinerators to murder Jews with maximum efficiency, who branded Jews with tattooed identification numbers so that they could be meticulously catalogued — as they were — who kept mountains of gold teeth, wedding bands, etc. as a testament to what they did. For Irving to have called himself a historian and an expert on the subject, but deny the Holocaust until he read _Eichmann's papers_, was never an ostensibly sincere belief. It was always a vicious, hate-filled lie and he was always a vicious, hate-filled liar. He is no better than Zundel, just more sophisticated.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I ask you refran from guessing at whom I would quote.


The idea repulses you now, but there are reams of things that he has said that are aligned with your own much expressed views. Even if you did some light background checking, you might have found only favourable references from leftist publications. It would not be the first time you picked a bad horse. There is, frankly, a plague of bad "found by google" references on ehmac, and you are not the only victim.

By the way, does the fact that Ignatieff (of all people) conducted the interview, challenging Hobsbawm until his true opinions were exposed, temper your opinions on Ignatieff at all?

Also, I don't think we need to have a genocide contest. I don't argue that the Holocaust is better documented or that there are more films about it. The quote you found that "many Americans display at least a basic knowledge of the Holocaust" is not a great comfort to me, not would I expect you to be satisfied by a similar quote that "many" Americans have "at least a basic knowledge" of the Soviet genocide. My point is that this is not good enough in either case.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> Makes me ill that someone was awarded a Pulitzer for denying the death of millions.


I know exactly how you feel.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> For Irving to have called himself a historian and an expert on the subject, but deny the Holocaust until he read _Eichmann's papers_, was never an ostensibly sincere belief. It was always a vicious, hate-filled lie and he was always a vicious, hate-filled liar. He is no better than Zundel, just more sophisticated.


Here is where I tend to agree with lpkmckenna that the intellectuals should be the defenders of truth but sometimes the courts have to be involved.
Irving lied about facts and propagated falsehoods. I found this article interesting as it shows a how Irving long perceived to be a Historian is not rightly considered a denier and revisionist of the worst kind. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5275


> Several years on, while working as an editor on an encyclopedia of military affairs, I learned more about Irving. That he was not simply a writer, or a historian, but in fact one of the leading historians of World War II,; possibly the leading historian of the German side. He possessed one of the most valuable archives of Nazi-era documentation in private hands. He had made several breakthroughs in our knowledge of Nazi policy, and was respected by figures such as John Keegan, the dean of contemporary military historians.
> 
> I also learned that his colleagues were well aware of Irving’s peculiarities: his tendency to give the Germans the benefit of every doubt; his disdain for the Allies; his near hero-worship of Adolf Hitler. (Keegan referred to his book Hitler’s War as “the autobiography Hitler never got to write”.) Most historians seemed to view Irving much the same as they might an eccentric uncle, who is fine until you brush against one of his obsessions.
> 
> ...



The judgment of trial can be viewed here: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I know exactly how you feel.


was someone awarded a Pulitzer for denying the Holocaust?



> Hobsbawm has not, of course, been charged with justifying genocide or any other crime. Indeed, he was made a Companion of Honour, which is the second-highest civilian award in the gift of the British government, some time after the Ignatieff interview.


more awards for those that deny

as for Ignatieff, I can only hope he lives out his term as a backbencher


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Because it is not mentioned in the above article, I'll add that Irving sued Lipstadt for libel because of her book, and that is what the Irving-Lipstadt trial was about.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> was someone awarded a Pulitzer for denying the Holocaust?


I thought it was the historical revisionism that bothered you, not the Pulitzer prize. My mistake. 

Maybe you should consider waiting a few minutes after you compose a message, before clicking "submit reply". I don't have any idea why you would respond to my comment in this fashion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> I thought it was the historical revisionism that bothered you, not the Pulitzer prize. My mistake.
> 
> Maybe you should consider waiting a few minutes after you compose a message, before clicking "submit reply". I don't have any idea why you would respond to my comment in this fashion.


both the historical revisionism and awards bother me

granting awards makes their deeds even more unseemly and puts into question those that would grants those awards

so not only do we have to fight those that would deny the Holodomor, we have to watch as people get awarded for denying it as well

how would you feel if a Pulitzer Prize or the 2nd highest civilian award by Great Britain was given to a Holocaust denier?

Any more outrage? Or just the same?
If just the same, I understand why you made that comment.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

So, why do you think I said I understand how you feel? You are horrified and offended by denial of an atrocity, and I say I understand how you feel. 

I suspect everybody else who read the message recognized the sentiment behind the comment. You seem to think there was something sinister in it.


macspectrum said:


> granting awards makes their deeds even more unseemly and puts into question those that would grants those awards


It certainly gives the historical revisionist credibility he doesn't deserve. You bet it "puts into question those that would grant those awards".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nothing sinister at all
dealing deniers of the Holodomor being rewarded for their unseemly deeds makes it even more difficult to educate others

article by margolis;
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2003/11/the_20th_centur.php



> Among these monstrous crimes, Ukraine stands out as the worst in terms of numbers. Stalin declared war on his own people. In 1932 he sent Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch, and NKVD secret police chief G. Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization
> 
> Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed ‘anti-party elements.’ Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch ’ the Soviet Adolf Eichmann ’ set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot.
> 
> ...


As far as I know, the Pulitzer committe has not rescinded Duranty's award.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Your thesis was that words are inviolate, and I have responded that your thesis is simplistic.


I never said any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth (or anyone elses, for that matter).



nxnw said:


> You acknowledge now that there is a line and you propose to draw it at "advocating violence".


I'm not drawing any line. I'm telling you what the law allows. I'm only identifying the existing line. 

But the hate speech law is inconsistent with the remaining Canadian law, and doesn't meet the Constitutional standard. It will be overturned.



nxnw said:


> What about advocating hate? That's where I draw it (and where the Criminal Code draws it, too). Hate mongering — by telling malicious lies about an identifiable group — seeks to dehumanize its victims and to characterize them as dangerous or enemies. If you have your eyes open, you know where that leads, not only in Nazi Germany. Rwanda is another fine example.


The situation in Rwanda (and the Sudan) was bigger than just "hate speech." The racial tension there, and may other places, had been brewing for eons. Suggesting anti-hate laws could have accomplished anything is nonsense.

As for Germany, your historical naivety is unbelievable. If Europe had stood up to Hitler, the Holocaust simply won't have happened. But because Europe (and Canada and the US) behaved like cowards, Hitler literally got away with murder.

Hitler had already spent time in jail for his failed coup. That didn't stop him, but you think some anti-hate law would have? Hitler swatted aside the German constitution like it was a spider web. He would have done the same to any hate laws.

The current Canadian law about hate speech will be overturned by the Supreme Court eventually. The previous anti-hate law was dumped in the Zundel case, because it clearly violated the Charter. Beyond a doubt, if the current law lands in the lap of the Supreme Court it'll get dumped again.

There are so many problems with "hate speech laws" I don't know where to begin. 

a) Why is it only hate speech if it's against a group? What about hate against an individual?

b) If Holocaust denial is hate speech, is gulag denial hate speech too? What about those who deny that Cuba is still a gulag state? Castro still has many admirers. Do we jail them too? There are many conservative-minded people who totally minimize the way natives were robbed of their land. Do we jail them too?

c) What is hate speech? This sounds like a stupid question, but really? Should Hitler's Mein Kampf be banned? Should The Bell Curve be banned, and Herrnstein and Murray jailed?

d) Accusations of racism are everywhere in politics. Advocates of employment equity sometimes call opponents of it racist. Are they right? Should books arguing against employment equity be banned too? Some people in Canada have argued that Natives living off reserves should pay taxes, but then they get called racist. Is it? Should calls for income tax for Natives be declared racism and banned?

e) Is criticism of religious groups hate speech? They are a group, after all. If I call fundamentalists a bunch of unscientific zealots, is that hate speech against fundamentalists?

f) And what about groups that are inevitably at odds? Catholics, Muslims, and Fundamentalists all argue that homosexuality is immoral. Gays claim that's hate speech. So when gays start calling Catholics bigots, is that hate speech? My mind just boggles at that one.  Or think about the tension between feminism and Islam, with each calling the other hate-filled.

g) How about tension over political values. Some Muslims were calling the recent Mohammed cartoons hate speech. Do we ban cartoons, too?

My point is pretty clear, I think. Leave the pursuit of truth to the intellectuals.



nxnw said:


> Now, about Irving changing his mind when he saw Eichmann's files, the Holocaust was the most thoroughly documented genocide in history — and thoroughly documented by its purveyors! The Nazis meticulously designed death factories with gas chambers and incinerators to murder Jews with maximum efficiency, who branded Jews with tattooed identification numbers so that they could be meticulously catalogued — as they were — who kept mountains of gold teeth, wedding bands, etc. as a testament to what they did. For Irving to have called himself a historian and an expert on the subject, but deny the Holocaust until he read _Eichmann's papers_, was never an ostensibly sincere belief. It was always a vicious, hate-filled lie and he was always a vicious, hate-filled liar. He is no better than Zundel, just more sophisticated.


I don't believe a word Irving says about his opinions on the Holocaust. I think he denied the Holocaust so he could sell millions of books. He used to be a serious historian. Once he was "established" he concocted a controversial fiction to increase his celebrity. Unfortunately it worked. He is more rich and famous as a Holocaust denier than he was as a leading historian of WWII.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Life is funny sometimes. I just finished reading, *Night
by Elie Wiesel*, and then I came across this thread on ehMac. Irony perhaps.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

This thread suffers from the same selective amnesia it brings into question.

Do we really need yet another justification of holocaust-denial?

What next, beating up puppies is okay, because somebody else ignored beating up puppies elsewhere?

Obviously it isn't right to gloss over anyone's suffering.

But don't ask us to have to deny what this series of unfriendly threads makes of the people who start them.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> I don't believe a word Irving says about his opinions on the Holocaust. I think he denied the Holocaust so he could sell millions of books. He used to be a serious historian. Once he was "established" he concocted a controversial fiction to increase his celebrity. Unfortunately it worked. He is more rich and famous as a Holocaust denier than he was as a leading historian of WWII.


Good for you that you don't believe Irving. Whether or not he was ever a serious historian is immaterial, because he was always a rabid anti-Semite, and used his stature as a "serious historian" to propagate hate.

His motivations are clear, and while fame and fortune may have been part of it, the pure hatred was always on display - as a Hitler apologist, in his overtly hateful statements made against Jews in speaking engagements. Ultimately his anti-Semitism was established by Deborah Lipstadt in her analysis of his work, and her work was ratified when Irving sued her for libel, and lost. The Court declared Irving, in its judgment to be an anti-Semite and racist, stating:


> ...in the absence of any excuse or suitable explanation for what he said or wrote, Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances. A few examples will suffice: Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves; that Jewish financiers are crooked; that Jews generate anti-semitism by their greed and mendacity; that it is bad luck for Mr Wiesel to be called 'Weasel'; that Jews are amongst the scum of humanity; that Jews scurry and hide furtively, unable to stand the light of day; that Simon Wiesenthal has a hideous, leering evil face; and so on...
> 
> 13.103 The principal explanation or justification offered by Irving for his comments about Jews is that he is seeking to explain to Jews why anti-semitism exists and not himself adopting the anti-semitism. But I do not think that this was the message that Irving was seeking to convey to his audiences and it was certainly not the sense in which his remarks were understood....
> 
> ...


Finally, I am glad to tell you that he has not prospered from his hate-mongering. The Lipstadt trial bankrupted him. He is broke and in jail.

On the issue of hate speech, I do not believe you comprehend what it is or what it does. I can tell you, subjectively what it's like. Although I live in a good neighbourhood in Toronto, it was not long ago that I was walking with my wife and a pickup truck passed us. Somebody in the truck called out, "****ING JEWS!" Let me tell you, it did not feel any different to me than if the guy had screamed that he was going to kill me or break my neck. It was just words. Just words to you, maybe. To me, it was an assault and I was injured by it.

To the target, whether it is an individual or an identifiable group, hate speech has a direct, intended and immediate impact on its target. 

More broadly, it is pretty clear that you have never felt the chill of being assaulted by the flood of hate some groups experience. Do you know that the very first web page google returns on the word "Jew" is a depraved, hideous site dedicated to sowing hatred against Jews? It is an assault, it is frightening, it hurts, it victimizes, it is intentional, and it is a crime.

Finally, if you don't understand this issue, I don't think I can help you, but I would like to think you are open minded enough to think your way through this concept. The Holocaust could not have happened if millions of people in Germany and Eastern Europe had not been bred and educated to believe that Jews were evil and subhuman. 

Your observation regarding Europe and the US in this regard is akin to an argument that a house would not have burned down if the firemen came sooner. I say that the house would not have burned down if it hadn't been soaked in gasoline and set on fire.


ljpmckenna said:


> I'm not drawing any line. I'm telling you what the law allows. I'm only identifying the existing line.
> 
> But the hate speech law is inconsistent with the remaining Canadian law, and doesn't meet the Constitutional standard. It will be overturned.


Your information and opinion in this regard is definitively incorrect. The law you refer to as being struck down was a section of the criminal code called "spreading false news" - the Crown originally employed this section of the code against Zundel, but it was was really meant to deal with things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre to cause chaos. The conviction was successfully appealed on the basis that this section could not not appropriately be applied to hate speech. The law against hate propaganda has survived at least two SCC Charter challenges in Andrews and Keegstra. You can find Keegstra and Andrews on canlii.com.

I will post the hate propaganda section in a separate post, for your reference. You will find that it is much more nuanced than you likely were aware, and addresses much of the concern and criticism of prosecuting hate speech, raised in your post.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Do you know that the very first web page google returns on the word "Jew" is a depraved, hideous site dedicated to sowing hatred against Jews? It is an assault, it is frightening, it hurts, it victimizes, it is intentional, and it is a crime.


Actually, no. It's a google page about Offensive Search Results


> If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.....


http://www.google.com/explanation.html

Then you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
http://www.jewschool.com/
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4753348.stm
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/jesusjew.html
http://www.singlejew.com/

On the American Google Jew Watch ranking is in the top 3 for the word "Jew". 
Google has written a letter to the Anti-Defamation League about the rankings:


> We would also like to thank you for posting an explanation on your website noting that a site's ranking in Google's search results are automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
> 
> I have attached the text we have put on our website that gives users a clear explanation of Google's search results. And I would like to underscore how the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.
> 
> We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.


http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Not to quibble, but you refer to a sponsored link above the search results. The first search result (by the way, I would not feel better if it were the second) is a hate site, and it is not the only one in the top 10.

To be clear, my point is that certain groups are relentlessly assaulted by hate. The quantity of hate published on the internet is overwhelming and chilling, and it hurts people. Supposing that such material is automatically protected as free speech, just because it is speech rather than a fist in the face, is not reasonable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Not to quibble, but you refer to a sponsored link above the search results. The first search result (by the way, I would not feel better if it were the second) is a hate site, and it is not the only one in the top 10.
> 
> To be clear, my point is that certain groups are relentlessly assaulted by hate. The quantity of hate published on the internet is overwhelming and chilling, and it hurts people. Supposing that such material is automatically protected as free speech, just because it is speech rather than a fist in the face, is not reasonable.


My point was a quibble - the search results are different with Google.ca or Google.com. 

You bring up interesting concepts with regards to free speech and the definition of hate. 


> What about freedom of expression when anti-Semitism is involved? Then it is not freedom of expression. Then it is a crime. Yet when Islam is insulted, certain powers raise the issue of freedom of expression.


Amr Mousa
Arab League Secretary General
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4710508.stm

In this context, I better understand why lpkmckenna wrote about making martyrs out of hatemongers.


> The risk remains that Mr Irving will seem a martyr to free speech and that his trial will further fuel the anger of those who accuse Europe of double standards - apparently ready to cite freedom of expression when it comes to printing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while incarcerating those who insult Jews.
> 
> For Professor Hajo Funke, a German historian who testified at the 2000 trial, that is a risk worth taking.
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4710508.stm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> To be clear, my point is that certain groups are relentlessly assaulted by hate. The quantity of hate published on the internet is overwhelming and chilling, and it hurts people.


nxw...Don't know if you've read *Blink* but in a clearly trackable, testable manner that "relentless assault" is worse than a fist in the face.
The impact is not just on the targetted but on society's perceptions as a whole.

Do I know an answer to the balance??? - no and it is frightening. For some groups ....historically unending. 

Personally I feel the only modicum of normalcy that can be reliably achieved is in fostering culturally companionable/unified ( Kurds for instance ) societies within an overarching neutral legal union which someday might be worldwide.

I think Canada has done a decent job of that. Could be better as always but we are on a decent path if we keep the sectarian excesses out of the system and give opportunity for BOTH common ground and cultural expression to groups.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I am sure I posted this, but it seems not to be here. S. 319 of the criminal code:


> Criminal Code
> PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
> Hate Propaganda
> Public incitement of hatred
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm not sure what your point is of posting the definition of "Hate Propaganda" under Canadian law. As information it's interesting - was there a point you were trying to make?
I found this examination of the law interesting:
http://www.journal.law.mcgill.ca/abs/vol46/1cohen.pdf


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Re: Artistseries quote from Arab League Secretary General, it is the epitome of irony that the Secretary General would complain that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Mulsim/anti-Arab material. There is a double standard, but quite the opposite of what he contends. 

In Canada, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Arabs or Muslims is the same as for anyone else. For instance, here is a recent case where the accused was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims in relation to pamphlets he wrote and distributed:http://www.canlii.com/on/cas/onca/2001/2001onca10036.html

In many of the countries of the Arab League, in contrast, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews is a job at a newspaper or a TV station.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Re: Artistseries quote from Arab League Secretary General, it is the epitome of irony that the Secretary General would complain that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Mulsim/anti-Arab material. There is a double standard, but quite the opposite of what he contends.


What irks me about some of what you write nxnw is the double standard that you use. Anything Arab is dismissed out of hand. Arm Moussa has been critical of US and Israel policies, granted. You brush Arm Moussa with your double standard and by proxy (one that you imply indirectly) that he is either anti-semite and/or a hatemonger. We can easily dismiss some false and fatuous comments, pictures, reports from the Arab world that clearly are hateful and derogatory. In the context of the story about Irving and the recent anti-muslim cartoons, his comments were rather apropos and lead to an interesting debate. 




nxnw said:


> In Canada, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Arabs or Muslims is the same as for anyone else. For instance, here is a recent case where the accused was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims in relation to pamphlets he wrote and distributed:http://www.canlii.com/on/cas/onca/2001/2001onca10036.html


The sentence was two years probation and 340 of volunteer work for the Islamic Society of North America. One would hope that justice be handled evenly for everyone no?


nxnw said:


> In many of the countries of the Arab League, in contrast, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews is a job at a newspaper or a TV station.


I'm not aware of this happening-I'm not saying that it may not of happened, just that I don't know of any cases. Yes, some of the material coming out of some Arab countries is rather disturbing. What I see is condemnation from you when an Arab (or any other race/religion) victimizes a Jew. But I don't think you have ever contemned hate crime against Arabs. Ariel Sharon visiting the Temple Mount received a credible response by many in it's denunciation - it was clearly made to provoke and he was warned that he would be inciting violence , unfortunately this leads to the Al-Aqsa Intifada and Sharon is rewarded by becoming prime minister.


> 2000: Sharon visits the disputed Temple Mount Sept. 28 to emphasize Israel's claim of sovereignty. Muslims, who call the site the Noble Sanctuary, are outraged, and widespread violence breaks out a day later. The bloodshed sparks a political crisis in Israel, leading to Barak's resignation. Sharon wins a landslide victory over Barak in Feb. 6, 2001, election for prime minister.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,6995,00.html


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> In many of the countries of the Arab League, in contrast, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews is a job at a newspaper or a TV station.


OK... but just wondering what happens in Israel if someone is caught promoting hatred against Arabs? 

I was looking at this trying to get a better understanding of the conflict in that part of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_Conflict

Right under history it says:



> The Arab-Israeli conflict has resulted in at least five major wars and a number of "minor conflicts". It has also been the source of two major Palestinian intifadas (uprisings) and is cited by al-Qaeda, a largely Arab organization, as one of the reasons for its conflict with the Western world.


I'd say Wiki is a reasonably reputable source of information... not perfect of course but better than say... Rense?

A similar statement in an article posted on Rense was dimissed as garbage... maybe it still is... I dunno... but it does speak to my assertion that everything is not necessarily garbage "just because" it shows up on certain sites.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> On the issue of hate speech, I do not believe you comprehend what it is or what it does. ... More broadly, it is pretty clear that you have never felt the chill of being assaulted by the flood of hate some groups experience.


You are completely incorrect. Moreover, you have no reason to believe this is true. And this kind of psuedo-argument is what philosophers call "Ad Hominem."



nxnw said:


> The Holocaust could not have happened if millions of people in Germany and Eastern Europe had not been bred and educated to believe that Jews were evil and subhuman.


True. But the agent of that education was state education and the activities of institutions like churches. Not the activities of some fringe writers.



nxnw said:


> Your observation regarding Europe and the US in this regard is akin to an argument that a house would not have burned down if the firemen came sooner. I say that the house would not have burned down if it hadn't been soaked in gasoline and set on fire.


Interesting analogy. But the house was soaked and lit by official institutions (the churches, the universities, and the state), not private writers.



nxnw said:


> The law against hate propaganda has survived at least two SCC Charter challenges in Andrews and Keegstra.


I am not familiar with the Andrews case so I'll have to get back to you. But the Keegstra case doesn't apply. Keegstra can't use "free speech" as a defence because he was acting as a public school teacher when spreading hate. You can't claim free speech in a publicly-funded forum like a classroom. Long before he was convicted I was telling people this.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> OK... but just wondering what happens in Israel if someone is caught promoting hatred against Arabs?


In Israel, you go to jail for conspiring or promoting hatred against Arabs. You also go to jail for causing harm to others, regardless of their ethnicity.

What was your point?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> OK... but just wondering what happens in Israel if someone is caught promoting hatred against Arabs?


There is an artist in jail right now for a picture she drew of a pig writing the Qur'an. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Soskin


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

More of the same from you, Artistseries. It is you who are blinkered and who asserts a consistent double standard when it comes to Israel. 

Leave it to you to to say, "I don't think you have ever contemned hate crime against Arabs" responding to my message referring, with obvious approval to the fact that "In Canada, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Arabs or Muslims is the same as for anyone else. For instance, here is a recent case where the accused was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims in relation to pamphlets he wrote and distributed:"

Characterizing Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as a hate crime is a perversion, as well, with the implication that Jews have no right to visit the holiest site in Judaism. Double standard indeed.

How can you ignore the virulent anti-Semitic hate coming out of Arab and Muslim countries? How about this 29 part series produced in Syria and broadcast throughout the mideast?


> Cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, on a visit to New York, denounced a Syrian-produced television series broadcast throughout the Muslim world during the holy month of Ramadan, calling it symptomatic of a dangerous strain of anti-Semitism that is growing worldwide.
> 
> "It helps dehumanize Jews, make them evil," Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who is now Israel's minister for Jerusalem and diaspora affairs, said Tuesday of the series, "Al Shatak."
> 
> ...


*A 29 part series!* And, sadly, there's plenty more where that came from. And Amr Mousa complains about a double standard?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

HowEver said:


> In Israel, you go to jail for conspiring or promoting hatred against Arabs. You also go to jail for causing harm to others, regardless of their ethnicity.
> 
> What was your point?


It was a question... you answered it. 
No other point.



> More broadly, it is pretty clear that you have never felt the chill of being assaulted by the flood of hate some groups experience.


I have... not to as great an extent as some but at a period in one's life when one is most suceptible to hate and hurt... as a child.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> True. But the agent of that education was state education and the activities of institutions like churches. Not the activities of some fringe writers...
> Interesting analogy. But the house was soaked and lit by official institutions (the churches, the universities, and the state), not private writers.


My point is that sowing hatred is, in principle, a criminal act. That it was done by the state and official institutions is particularly monstrous, and certainly no less criminal in character.


lpkmckenna said:


> I am not familiar with the Andrews case so I'll have to get back to you. But the Keegstra case doesn't apply. Keegstra can't use "free speech" as a defence because he was acting as a public school teacher when spreading hate. You can't claim free speech in a publicly-funded forum like a classroom. Long before he was convicted I was telling people this.


Keegstra and Andrews both apply with regard to your belief that the hate propagada section of the code would not survive Charter scrutiny. In both cases, the accused attempted to have the section of the Code struck down, and failed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> More of the same from you, Artistseries. It is you who are blinkered and who asserts a consistent double standard when it comes to Israel.


Ironic how you would quote Natan Sharansky, who one hand promotes democracy, human rights and free speech (and that for oppressed people) yet at the same time has always taken a hard line against Palestinians. It illustrates the dichotomy in many of your arguments. 


> Nor has Sharansky been a consistent advocate of democracy and the rule of law within Israel itself. As minister of the interior in 1999, he refused to extradite two Russian Jews living in Israel who were former NKVD officers charged with massacring dozens of civilians in Lithuania prior to World War II. In December 2003, Sharansky addressed a rally in Jerusalem where some other speakers advocated disenfranchising Israeli Arabs.
> 
> The issue that has done the most to convince many Israelis that Sharansky’s commitment to democratic procedures is selective was his recent behavior as minister for Jerusalem. In June 2004, in a move Ha’aretz reported in an article aptly entitled “Like Thieves in the Night,” Sharansky and another minister met secretly and declared large tracts of Arab land in Jerusalem to be abandoned and therefore subject to confiscation. The land was not really abandoned. Rather, the Palestinian owners could not assert their claim because their property was on the wrong side of Israel’s security fence. Lower ranking Ministry of Justice officials objected to this decision, but it did not become a public issue until Israel’s attorney general formally declared Sharansky’s move illegal. Labor Member of Knesset Amram Mitzna simply labeled it “theft.”


http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_28/cover.html



nxnw said:


> Leave it to you to to say, "I don't think you have ever contemned hate crime against Arabs" responding to my message referring, with obvious approval to the fact that "In Canada, the consequence of wilfully promoting hatred against Arabs or Muslims is the same as for anyone else. For instance, here is a recent case where the accused was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against Muslims in relation to pamphlets he wrote and distributed:"


I though you were giving an example of how the law is equally applied in Canada - not your personal condemnation. 




nxnw said:


> Characterizing Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as a hate crime is a perversion, as well, with the implication that Jews have no right to visit the holiest site in Judaism. Double standard indeed.


Certainly not a perversion to many - Sharon's visit was a deliberate act, one calculated. It was done at a time of high tension during an election campaign.


> It was also a clear message that G-d is determined to continue to save Israel and not to allow any enemy to put his hand on His holy mountain and His holy city Jerusalem. He showed everyone that — whether they want it or not — the Temple Mount will very soon be the site of His holy temple.


http://www.templemountfaithful.org/Newsletters/2001/5761-5.htm


> Sharon, leader of the hard-line opposition party Likud, said he had gone to the site with a message of peace.
> 
> "I believe that we can live together with the Palestinians," Sharon said. "I came here to the holiest place of the Jewish people in order to see what happens here and really to have the feeling of how we need to move forward. There was no provocation here."
> 
> ...


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/


> Palestinian security chief Jibril Rajoub warned that if Sharon goes ahead with his tour of the site, which Muslims call Haram as-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary, it could lead to a reprise of battles between Israelis and Palestinians in 1990 and 1996.
> 
> Rumors that Jewish extremists planned to start rebuilding the Jewish Temple set off a riot on the hill in 1990. Israeli police opened fire, killing 19 Palestinians and wounding 140.
> 
> ...


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/27/israel.palestinians.ap/index.html
The last quote was before Sharon visited - you have to extremely gullible to think that Sharon's visit was only "routine". It ended up inciting violence....

The Temple Mount, as you know, is a holy site for Jew and the third holiest site in Islam - and is sacred to Christians also. Don't start inferring that I don't think that Jews should not visit it. 



nxnw said:


> How can you ignore the virulent anti-Semitic hate coming out of Arab and Muslim countries? How about this 29 part series produced in Syria and broadcast throughout the mideast?*A 29 part series!* And, sadly, there's plenty more where that came from. And Amr Mousa complains about a double standard?


I don't ignore anti-Semitic hate coming out of Arab, Muslim or any other countries. I don't advocate a tit-for-tat mentality. I personally find some Arab claims to be disgusting and at time ludicrous.

When it comes to hate crimes, I think that debunking false claims is better. In other words, I'm a strong advocate of Free Speech and prefer not to have to use hate crime laws. By censoring hate speech, do we not somehow "glorify it"? Would the battle not be easier and more effective by confronting it head on like Deborah Lipstadt did?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ironic how you would quote Natan Sharansky, who one hand promotes democracy, human rights and free speech (and that for oppressed people) yet at the same time has always taken a hard line against Palestinians. It illustrates the dichotomy in many of your arguments.


Actually, I was quoting the Associated Press. The story is true and, indeed, excerpts of the 29 part hate fest were broadcast on a CBC news documentary recently. It is sad that you would try to diminish the truth of the story by slagging an Israeli politician quoted in it.


ArtistSeries said:


> I though you were giving an example of how the law is equally applied in Canada - not your personal condemnation.


No, you misrepresented my personal views, to try to make a point, insinuating that I am indifferent to hate speech against Muslims. It was very clear to any objective observer that I was supporting the principled thing we do in Canada — prosecuting hate speech against any group, including Muslims. That belies your criticism.


artistseries said:


> The Temple Mount, as you know, is a holy site for Jew and the third holiest site in Islam - and is sacred to Christians also. Don't start inferring that I don't think that Jews should not visit it.


You invite that inference when you insinuate the incident into a discussion about hate propaganda, and characterize it as a hate crime. Call it dumb, badly timed, provocative if you like, but it had no place in this discussion and your comments supported the inference I made.

And if you are going to complain about Sharansky, you shouldn't be looking to Hanan Ashrawi for fair and accurate commentary either.


ArtistSeries said:


> When it comes to hate crimes, I think that debunking false claims is better. In other words, I'm a strong advocate of Free Speech and prefer not to have to use hate crime laws. By censoring hate speech, do we not somehow "glorify it"? Would the battle not be easier and more effective by confronting it head on like Deborah Lipstadt did?


Keep in mind that it was the libel trial and the Court's condemnation of Irving as a racist that ultimately debunked him. But for the trial, Lipstadt's work would have received less attention and Irving would still be in be in the hate business. 

I agree that it is "better" for false claims to be debunked, in a better world where people are better informed, more open minded, less prone to hate and prejudice, and people can be expected to read what the debunkers write. In this world, however, there is no better demonstration of the principle that our society rejects racism, than public condemnation of hateful racist lies. 

If you were to falsely accuse me of some horrible deed, I could sue you (and there is also a provision in the Criminal Code). Hateful lies have never been protected expression. Libel and slander laws can't be asserted by a religious, racial or ethnic group, however, for a purely technical reason — there is no plaintiff. The act, however, is more damaging, more poisonous, because it attacks a whole people rather than a single victim. To me, there is no rational basis why we would prosecute people for theft, fraud, assault, speeding, parking illegally, public nudity, etc., but give a free pass to hatemongers.


----------

