“Holocaust denier gets MP backing“
This is such a dishonest headline, sticking to literal truth while implying that Chris Huhne (in deploring an arrest in Britain, under EU law, for an offence which is not illegal in this country) is somehow ‘backing’ the (IMHO) eccentric view that the Shoah is “a lie”. Mr Tobin is being extradited to Germany for what he has written on his Australian website.
I’ll let Ross say it :
What part of free speech don’t they understand ?
Obviously if he backed a Holocaust denier then he would be unfit for office, but of course that is not what he has done, he has simply made it clear that he regards free speech as being for everyone even if you disagree with them.
The BBC doesn’t do free speech. It does local council/polytechnic speech and is about on the same intellectual and authoritarian level as these organisations.
I’d love to see the BBC’s reports if we started extraditing homosexuals to Sharia Law countries – if there any reporting. The BBC would probably just completely ignore such cases or bury them very, very deeply in its web site.
Agree, really bad headline; although the piece is fine. The journo is not responsible for the headline usually. Huhne’s position is entirely honourable and in my view right. Tobin’s views thought aren’t “eccentric”, they are vile in every respect.
I wonder how long before the sinister neo-socialist scumbags of the EU find a way to rationalize the criminal prosecution of climate change “deniers”?
I would be willing to bet that it has already been talked about behind closed doors. It would not matter that those who disagree with the “consensus” have reasonable scientific grounds to do so. They’d justify it on the grounds that “deniers” are a “threat to the planet” or some crap like that.
It’s true that Holocaust deniers are a thoroughly deluded and ignorant bunch (they’re up there with 9/11 conspiracy theorists) but I respect their right to hold or express any opinion they choose.
Anyway, on a related note – isn’t it funny that the pisspots of the EU pretend to be so concerned about the welfare of Jews, yet when pressed these lefties are the first to condemn Israel’s efforts to defend itself against another Holocaust? And when EU legislators back tough gun laws, aren’t they saying, in effect, as individuals you have no right to protect yourself from another Hitler? Imagine how different things would have been had 6 million Jews had a gun or two each.
Jason,
Some German green has already,a woman IIRC,has demanded that AGW sceptics are treated as Holocaust Deniers.
Can’t remember what the punishment proposed,something like being incarcerated in camps.
Peter,
Didn’t the BBC just come out with an announcement that they view AGW skeptics as “opponents of the consensus? Step one, no?
Peter | 04.10.08 – 6:35 pm | #
In that case, a counter argument should be made to have environmentalists incarcerated in camps, since they pose one of the greatest threats to mankind. I wonder how far we’d get with that proposal.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_environmentalism
Yes. I wonder if the BBC will take the same attitude with Muslim hate preachers who turn up here?
The problem is the headline which needs changing. Sloppiness rather than bias here.
In many ways this sloppy journalism is a deal of the BBC’s problem.
Re the arrest warrant. I assume that when Lisbon is fully ratified a British citizen who writes or speaks against whatever the EU considers to be it’s laws will be liable to arrest and extradition to a member country where there is no Common Law or jury trial.
This is why this is an important case nothing to do with the man’s views .
Deny global warming and get incarcerated?? Okay. Not much there to criticize. Hmm.
I wonder how many of these leftist EU cyborgs deny how many died in Stalin’s communist Gulags. Or how many innocents were killed by Che Guevara and his goons. Let’s face it, the left has either denied or attempted to rationalize just about every case of Marxist butchery in history.
I’m actually puzzled by their Holocaust denial laws. What do lefties care about Jews? I thought they were “the cause of all the wars in the world” etc. I actually think that they’re driven less by a respect of Jewish people than they are by the fact that Nazism represents “the right” to them (even though the Nazis were socialists in many ways).
After all, you’ll often hear them compare those they think are oppressive to “Hitler,” but when was the last time you heard a lefty compare someone to Stalin? When was the last time you heard one remark that America was on its way towards resembling “communist Russia”? You won’t, because in their minds the horrors of Marxism, which claimed around 18 times more victims than Nazism, simply “didn’t happen.” Or if it did, it was justified because of “good intentions.”
‘Bad’ headline. Reasons unknown. Excuses… none. Consequences?
Dishonest, or inept, there should be an accounting.
It’s a chilling prospect – that we could be arrested in the UK for a “crime” that does not even exist in the UK.
I can understand why they needed these tough anti-nazi laws in Germany 50 years ago. But to ambush international travellers as they fly through Heathrow really stinks.
The only real answer is to free the BBC from tax funding. Then whatever it says is its own affair and that of the people who choose to fund it.
David Preiser,
Yes step one.Wonderfully ironic that the Germans want to punish those who say they weren’t that wicked.
I agree thet the piece itself isn’t too bad. But the headline stinks.
“Since the supposed ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.”
State of Fear by Michael Crichton
Yes, it is a dumb headline. Article is OK, though, just factual.
From a link on the sidebar of the article, it appears that he was arrested and sentenced to ten months in jail in Germany nine years ago for the same offence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/515676.stm
Be interesting to know how they kept track of him. How did they know he was flying via Britain? Where do the powers to get that information come from?
I see he served 7 months of the sentence in Germany and was also jailed in Austria for 11 months for the same or similar offence:
http://hnn.us/roundup/41.html
So they are obviously on this guy’s case.
I guess it must be a profound sense of shame that drove Austria and Germany and some other countries in Europe to criminalise Holocaust denial. Interesting that the reach extends to an Australian citizen in transit through Britain.
I’m disturbed by the fact that Toben was a schoolteacher. It is highly likely that he tried to indoctrinate his pupils with his foul views.
I’m not exactly sure where I stand on this. But I have no sympathy for scum like Toben and if people can be jailed for defamation, why not for Holocaust denial?
by the way – chris huhne voted for the european arrest warrant when he was an MEP.
as pointed out here
so that makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.
Bryan: It is much more than shame, even. Holocaust denial is a terrible thing. It is a malevolent denial of a documented crime against humanity and regarded as an aspect and a continuation of that crime itself. It is hurtful towards the dead, the survivors, families, descendants and Jewish people all over again; it is deliberately and malignantly anti-Jewish. The Nazis were deniers and it is like being a Nazi all over again, so it is banned, like other things to do with Nazis, in the countries of the Nazis, Germany and Austria. It is also more of a fear and problem in parts of Europe than perhaps in the UK, although we have had a few here too (the NF etc.)
I guess free speech stops here at denying the holocaust in WWII Germany. However, freedom of speech to lie that causes the killing of hundreds of thousands around the world is quite alright amongst democratic nations. — While I understand the point, it is not just nor logical.
We are seeing signs of the world waking up to the hypocrisy and as is mentioned in the teachings of Muslims, the Christian-Islamo alliance that will fight injustices around the world. 5pillar.wordpress.com
Christian-Islamo alliance! Cripes, 5pillar, you’re full of it.
Don’t think so Wally. Most Arabs are either Muslim or Christian. What do you think is going on in Palestine? It was the U.S. that originally counted on Afghanistan to quell and open the door for the disbanding of the Soviet Union. In Islamic teachings, it is the Christian who will be closest to the Muslims in the final war(s)on earth.
The term Judeo-Christian exists only in the pro-Zionist movement of the West. Most Christians do not accept the fact that Jews do not even acknowledge Jesus; as Muslims revere him, and even await the second coming. Only Muslims, outside of only some Christians also revere his mother, the Virgin Mary.
As far as the Muslim unity with Jews, they both hold more close to the monotheistic of the one God without any attribute of divinity by Jesus.
Therefore, essentially, there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian without the bond with Islam.
If you think I am incorrect, then it is safe to say that you are unaware of these factoids that I am presenting. Either way, may we both learn together and not only seek the truth, but also to display our servitude for His purpose. Peace.
Millie Tant, I agree totally. Sometimes it’s difficult to find words for the horror of the Holocaust and Holocaust denial.
Dunno if this is accurate, but there are 11 countries with laws gainst holocaust denial according to the table in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm
archduke | 04.10.08 – 11:02 pm,
Yeah, I should have realised it’s a EU thing.
I’m perfectly aware that Muslims believe that the Bible is a document that has been tampered with and corrupted and that in fact the stories told by Mohammed are the correct versions e.g. that Jesus was not the son of god (Muslims are at one with the Jews on that) did not die on the cross and was a prophet whose message was less complete than the the later Arabian warlord. What happens when your Islamo-Christian alliance triumphs? Do the Christians get a choice of circumcision, paying jizya or death? Your syncretist religion of garbled Bible stories, Jewish and Christian heresies, Arabian cults and the pathological idiosyncracies of an illiterate are only Abrahamic in as much as it wished to borrow respectability from two established faiths with view to ultimately subsuming them.
Christianity derived from Judaism and its ethical system has more in common with Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism and te Chinese religions than it could ever have with the frankly bizarre dual morality of Mohammedanism (one law for Muslims another, more brutal, almost amoral one for non-Muslims – plus the subordination of women). I think your posting also reflects the ‘confused’ attitude of your religion towards honesty and openness.
By the way – since Israel handed Bethlehem over to the Palestinians the Christians have been leaving the place in droves as a result of Muslim intimidation and persecution. The majority of Christians have been driven out of Iraq and are seeking refuge in Baathist Syria where part of the reason they are protected is because the majority of the sunni population do not regard their alawite military overlords as proper Muslims. In consequence the government seeks to weaken the power of the religious establishment and regards the Christians as dependable subordinates.The legal disabilities and harassment of Christians in virtually all Islamic countries would be better known if the BBC didn’t operate what amounts to a news blackout on such stories. Among the greatest genocides of modern times was Turkey’s massacre of a million and a half Christians – the Islamic world denies it ever even took place.
Great post Wally. There’s no doubt that the BBC is involved in a conspiracy of silence regarding the brutal oppression of Christians by Muslims worldwide. And when they do talk about difficulties Christians experience, they obfuscate and mislead:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4548312.stm
This is the quote they choose to extract from the article:
I believe we should stay to challenge the occupation, not emigrate and let the Israelis take our land
Palestinian Christian Khalil Hanania
While burying the concerns “a few” Christians have about their Muslim neighbours in one sentence in the middle of a long article:
A few Christians speak privately of harassment, Muslims seizing Christian land and the fear of speaking out against radical groups.
Before moving on to blame the Israelis again.
Amazing how the BBC has become a propagandist for radical Islam.
I meant to add that the following article is a little more revealing about the Muslim agenda in Bethlehem, though it still comes up with the obligatory trashing of the Israelis:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/20/do2004.xml
Interestng comment section to the article.
That the BBC and the left ingeneral have a problem with Jews is undeniable (no pun intended). Anyone who argues that the systematic mass murder of Jews in Europe of 1942-45 did not happen is deluded and possibly evil – but I do like to know exactly who they are. The BBC and the wider left seek to use ‘denialism’ as a weapon and attach meaning beyond the Holocaust, such as to ‘global warming’. The BBC and the left apparently venerate the 6 million Jewish victims of nazism yet simultaneously support policies in the Middle East which would cause a re-play of the Holocaust, this time in Israel. I can only conclude that, to the BBC, the only good Jews are dead Jews.
If you belive in free speech then you believe in free speech.
You cannot believe in free speech and then ban conspiracy theorists from speaking and unfortunately that also includes holocaust denial.
Wally and 5Pillar,
There are no such things as God/Allah/Jehovah/Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The minute religion (all types) rears its ugly head common-sense takes a holiday.
There may not be such a thing as Santa Claus but there is such a thing as David Irving and this chap Tobin, more’s the pity.
Arthur Dent | 05.10.08 – 3:32 pm |
“If you belive in free speech then you believe in free speech.”
Does free speech allow incitement to racial hatred nowadays?
Surely haulocaust denial is the thin end of that wedge and I agree with what Millie Tant posted at 11.34
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2064238247350460124/#423005
Does free speech allow incitement to racial hatred nowadays
Of course not it has now been made illegal. Ergo we no longer have freedom of speech in this country.
This is really important remember Voltaire. First we had incitement to racial hatred being illegal, then it was religious hatred.
As far as the BBC is concerned the BNP has no right to be heard, nor is any criticism of Islam to be allowed (although Christianity & Judaism are still fair game)
We are already marching down the slope where climate ‘denial’ will also be outlawed.
Teke off your blinkers and recognise that freedom of speech is one of societies greatest safeguards.
Sue You might like to read this. I agree with them 100%
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/sooner-or-later-this-was-going-to.html
Please note that there is a world of difference between being offended by something (the BBC offends me most days) and demanding that it be made a criminal offence.
The BBC offends many people daily. Perhaps we should make it a criminal offence for the BBC to broadcast propaganda, display bias, use euphemisms for terrorists or take sides in American elections and wars or conflicts.
It couldn’t very well object to this. After all, it espouses impartiality, honesty and an honourable mission to inform, does it not?
Millie Tant | 06.10.08 – 12:24 am | #
Additionally, I’d like to see mandatory drug testing for all BBC employees so we can ensure that no license money is ending up in the pockets of cocaine and crystal meth dealers.
Arthur Dent | 05.10.08 – 3:32 pm |
“If you belive in free speech then you believe in free speech.”
Sue | 05.10.08 – 9:55 pm | #
Surely haulocaust denial is the thin end of that wedge
Arthur Dent | 05.10.08 – 11:48 pm | #
Please note that there is a world of difference between being offended by something… and demanding that it be made a criminal offence.
I have to say that I am with AD on this one, and am grateful for his link share, which is a worthy analysis, especially with its critique of the ‘selective application’ of some politicians who have come up against the consequence of multiple standards.
Just like such as being ‘a little bit pregnant’, whilst often problematic there are some things are pretty much ‘all or nothing’ to stand or fall.
And exceptions to rules can open cans of worms. Ask any parent.
For now, if someone offers the view that the Holocaust never happened, I will treat that statement with the respect I feel it deserves. I may even be so moved to articulate my right to disagree… with my view.
If they move to another level of belief, beyond words, then that is another matter, and I believe laws exist to address and, in theory cope with that.
So I am not sure there is not a more pervasive, and insidious sliver of a very fat wedge at play, and it is from those who seem to be suggesting that ‘Ah, but this is different; I don’t like it, so it must be banned’.
I do hope it’s OK, for now, for me to believe that.
Where I stand on free speech is that I am in great favour of it it in principle.
But have we really got free speech at the moment? After all there are laws concerning slander, libel, defamation of character, hurt feelings. Zillions of quid are awarded to people who don’t like being slagged off or lied about.
In that context, surely the consequences of perpetrating these porkies bears little comparison. Insults are one thing, incitement to racial hatred is another.
Not that I think any of that is admirable in any way shape or form.
Just a thought.
“Free speech” is not the freedom to commit libel: free speech is not the freedom to incite civil violence: free speech is not – as one US Supreme Court judge said – the freedom to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. Free speech is the freedom to say (within the above limits) what you like when you damn well like even if it offends others (in fact particularly if it offends others). There’s no point in believing in free speech “in principle” if you don’t believe in it in practice.
Holocaust denial (as well as “truther” denial re 9/11) is vile but that is no reason it should be criminalised. I would rather know who the enemies of reason are and see them humiliated (cf the Irving/Lipstadt case) than elevate them to an equality with genuine heroes and deniers of state “truth” (eg Vaclav Havel)
Coming back to the subject of this site: the BBC does not believe in free speech when it comes to, for instance, warmism or the behaviour/beliefs of Moslems. Indeed it already treats climate sceptics rather worse than Holocaust deniers. In the last month (in a programme on the Hitler Diaries hoax) I have heard David Irving praised for his sterling work in historical research. I have yet to hear Steve McIntyre mentioned, let alone praised for his exposure of the mendacities of the warmists.
Fair points all.
I guess we are in areas of historical precedent, recent revisions, allowing for the modern age… and lines in the sand.
I honestly do not know enough about the law to really comment in detail, but what little I do know perhaps highlights the confusion.
But in many ways it seems to me a lot of the messes are as the result of previous recent messes by ‘smart’ folk being compounded.
If a person next to me says ‘I think your ‘sort’ is inferior’, I’d be offended, really wish they hadn’t said it and think less of them. I might even say so. Not sure where either party stands as a consequence of that any more.
If they say all of the above, plus that, in their opinion, my ‘sort’ should be killed off, I am not quite sure what the legal stance is, but I’d be feeling threatened. Is that not what has always been called ‘assault’?
If they then proceed to act on their view, then that would be battery, and they get full force of a good talking to and to visit me in hospital, or something. Unless it’s an ‘ism or ‘ist-act, in which case all legal hell breaks loose. So long as my ‘sort’ qualifies.
So it seems some clarification may be needed, at least for average types like me, plus the reassurance that it is being applied equally and fairly.
Or, in many cases, applied at all in areas other than those that tick a few PC boxes.
With a certain irony, I had no sooner penned the above than I found this in my in-box:
On 6 Oct 2008, at 11:32, blogpaulmason wrote:
Dear BBC Blog contributor,
Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below
Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they appear to be potentially defamatory.
You can find out more about Defamation at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/HouseRules-Defamation
You can read the BBC Blog and messageboard House Rules in full here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html
If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we’d be happy for you to post it again.
Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_breaking_rules.html
Regards,
The BBC Blog Team
A reply has been in order:
Dear Sirs,
As I cannot see a problem , and as you have not seen fit to specify what it might be out of a myriad possible options and catch-alls, I am currently unable to rewrite it.
Care to explain which part is defamatory, and to whom, as that seems to be where you are headed.
Having read the definition:
Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or
Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation’s office, profession or trade.
You are having a laugh, right?
I’d say that by this definition almost no content should even get on your broadcast (especially some satirical shows) output, let alone a blog.
Rgds,
No reply as yet. Oddly, while Halo allowed a preview, it wouldn’t/won’ publish.
Fingers’ crossed.
Glad to see this being publicised in here.
Not only is the guy a bit different …to put it politely… but the really really annoying thing for me is that guys like this can bring down the entire British legal system where free speech is concerned, potentially creating some nasty case law for the thin end of a wedge which will undo all the work and efforts that previous generations of this country fought for.
We all know the kind of person he is and he should be left to rot in his own lonely universe, and he DEFINITELY shouldn’t be allowed to damage our society with its hard won rights.
…kinda appropriate that its the Germans that want him…heh
“Holocaust denial is a terrible thing. It is a malevolent denial of a documented crime against humanity and regarded as an aspect and a continuation of that crime itself.”
Millie Tant | 04.10.08 – 11:34 pm
I agree. So what’s the essential difference between that and what Umbongo says:
“Holocaust denial (as well as “truther” denial re 9/11) is vile” adding:
“but that is no reason it should be criminalised.”
Umbongo | 06.10.08 – 11:57 am
Umbongo uses the well-known shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre thing that makes the case that certain circumstances justify curtailment of freedom of speech.
(Unless the shouter thinks there really is a fire, and has good intentions.)
The implication being that the intent is to incite fear, panic and possibly people being trampled on. In the view of the Supreme Court judge, that danger is enough to justify the curtailment of free speech. In other words, the consequences of shouting “Fire!” could potentially endanger lives. So you shouldn’t be free to do so.
Umbongo said holocaust denial is ‘a vile’ thing but there is no reason to criminalise it. I think there is as good a case for the curtailment of freedom of speech with holocaust denial, as there is with the “Fire” example. Both are being being done with malevolence and have potentially dangerous outcomes. Incitement to racial hatred has consequences that could potentially endanger lives.
If Irving and Toben et al have free rein to spew their bile I defend your right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre should the mood take you, and (to parody Umbongo) (particularly if it offends others by causing a few cuts and bruises and tramplings to death.) I would rather see you humiliated and debagged by the baying mob to shouts of “You’re a fire starter” – (You’re the firestarter, twisted firestarter I’m the self inflicted, mind detonator … )
Ady, guys like him CAN bring the system down. Like Terrorism.
So let’s have complete freedom for all. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back.
Sue Ok, if you criminalise holocaust denial would you also criminalise climate change denial and if not why not. After all many people will, and do say that Both are being being done with malevolence and have potentially dangerous outcomes
Oh, by the way the environmental movement is very good at metaphorically ‘shouting fire in a crowded theatre’. They do it all the time since they work by trying to scare the wits out of the public so that action will be taken by politicians.
ady | 07.10.08 – 11:12 am |
Glad to see this being publicised in here.
Nice to see your concern about free speech, but what is the BBC bias in this article?
Arthur,
I’m not sure that I do advocate criminalising anything. I was pointing out where I saw an anomaly.
As to climate change denial, isn’t the jury still out on that subject?
I’m only an arts graduate, so I don’t opine out loud.
(Please don’t take that too seriously)
On the spanking thread, someone has noticed that we have strayed off the subject of BBC bias. So we have. As David P has also noticed.
Indeed this thread has veered off topic but so do many other comments posted on this blog. Are we under a three-line whip now?
This thread gave much food for thought and the issue is undoubtedly one of the most interesting, though vexed, questions that we could discuss. It is a pity that it is off topic.
Sue You seem a little confused
12.08 I think there is as good a case for the curtailment of freedom of speech with holocaust denial
2.55 I’m not sure that I do advocate criminalising anything
Arthur Dent:
Sue You seem a little confused.
Sorry Arthur old chap. You are the confused one.
“I think there is as good a case for the curtailment of freedom of speech with holocaust denial, as there is with the “Fire” example.”
If my posts are too boring to read properly, scroll past. You have a habit of chasing me and misunderestimating my philosphical surmisings.
I had not come to a conclusion about the issue, finding it worrying that in this particularly dangerous climate (creeping Islamisation and antisemitism) we are forced to endure, overlook, tolerate – what you will – holocaust denial in the overall interests of retaining freedom of speech.
Which we have no absolute right to already.
I said something that annoyed you the other day. Sorry.
Sorry Sue, I don’t find you at all annoying, your comments are among the most perceptive. Simply not sure where you are coming from.
It is generally accepted that freedom of speech does not extend to ‘shouting fire in a theatre’. My view is that Holocaust Denial does not fall into the same category and should be covered by Freedom of speech. It is offensive to me, and not borne out by historical evidence but stupidity and offensiveness should not be a barrier to free speech (otherwise you have to close down Parliament in London & Brussels)
However, you seem to think it should be banned (?) and thus I was interested in where you would then draw the line between acceptable free speech & unacceptable.
“Nice to see your concern about free speech, but what is the BBC bias in this article?
David Preiser (USA)”
I shall try and keep it REALLY simple for ya.
REALLY simple.
Please read the following line 100 times.
MP backing for ‘Holocaust denier’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm
Then show us all any British MP who actually supports Mr Toben.
Any MP, any MP at all…
Just one.
*sigh*