Denying the Holocaust

As the violence over the Dutch cartoons continues, in Austria British historian David Irving has been jailed for three years for denying the Holocaust.

Holocaust-deniers are ignorant, foolish, and quite possibly anti-Semitic. Their views are distasteful and offensive.

As such, they should be treated just like anyone else with ill-informed, unpleasant opinions: ignored, or their arguments countered with facts.

Locking them up is illiberal and unnecessary.

Comments

[JSM on 21.02.06 at 15:15]

" Irving's opinion was used to dissuade or misrepresent historical truth and therefore is in contravention of the law."

Ever crack open a US history book?

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 15:18]

"If it is the act of writing a book which upsets people as opposed to the actual misguided denial of the Holocaust, why not put the publisher jail?"

For many years Irving has acted as his own publisher. No reputable publishing house would touch his work once the Holocaust denials started so his books became glorified vanity press productions ...

[Uncle Elvis on 21.02.06 at 15:20]

JSM, the difference is that it is not illegal in the States to do whatever you are accusing American History books of doing. It is illegal in Austria to do what this asshole did.

[loki on 21.02.06 at 15:27]

Elvis, you're missing the point, though: the question is not whether what he did was illegal (it unquestionably was), but whether it is right for what he did to be illegal. As I questioned previously (a question which most seem to have avoided), do you believe that it is right for governments, groups and individuals to legislate what is, and is not 'the truth' and 'history'. Forget this asshole for a minute and forget the specific issue about which he spoke - look at the wider picture. How comfortable would you be, for instance, to allow Bermuda's government to dictate through legislation what Bermuda's history is and what 'the truth' is?

[Shelley on 21.02.06 at 15:33]

JSM,
Shades of grey again - but this was genocide. And my concern is the legal argument - the need to establish its fact before we can prosecute and Irving supposed credibility as an "academic". It's interesting to note that a significant majority of the Nazi think tank who devised the Final Solution were lawyers. So was the Nazi Administrator of Occupied Holland in WW2. I also can never forget the Nuremburg racial laws. The factual occurence of the Holocaust should never be disputed or open to legal interpretation.

[loki on 21.02.06 at 15:33]

Renowned lawyer and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, made a great point on censorship of offensive information when Harvard feminists petititioned to have the Harvard library discontinue its subscription to Playboy magazine on the grounds that it was sexist and objectified women, something that they found offensive. The problem is: we can't go around censoring speech and text because we find it offensive and morally objectionable. Everybody finds different things offensive, and that's the problem, and just because we may find something offensive isn't grounds to censor it. Prof. Dershowitz proposed that everyone at Harvard University should have the right to censor one type of book in the library - he would choose to censor all of the books that advocated censorship. By the time all of the staff and students had made their individual selections, the library would be devoid of all books and they could convert it into a swimming pool of squash courts!

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 15:39]

"do you believe that it is right for governments, groups and individuals to legislate what is, and is not 'the truth' and 'history'."

The Austrian (and German) laws dating from the post-war deNazification period do not legislate what the "truth" is. Rather they make it a crime to perpetrate *untruths* denying the Holocaust ... There is a difference (and not just a semantic one). Given one of the foundations of Nazi totalitarianism was expert use of the "Big Lie" technique, the need for the post-war laws would seem obvious. The continuing need for them would certainly seem open to debate ... Altho' given an Iranian president willing to engage in nuclear brinksmanship over his claim the Holocaust never happened, maybe it's self-deluding to believe this specific issue can be divorced from the current "wider picture".

[loki on 21.02.06 at 15:43]

Triggerfish, I cannot accept that a law which decrees that you cannot perpetuate 'untruths' is any different from a law which decrees what 'the truth' is: in defining the 'untruths', you are necessarily defining and decreeing 'the truth'.

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 15:49]

"... you are necessarily defining and decreeing 'the truth'."

Loki, if you are suggesting the actuality -- and enormity -- of the Nazi death camp program is open to factual refutation, then I can only conclude you have absorbed far more from David Irving than his distaste for Churchill.

[silencedogood on 21.02.06 at 15:54]

Loki,

You are wasting your breath.

You would have more luck with this crowd by passing a law making it illegal to support laws against free. They would at least agree with you on the principle of the law.

It seems improbable that they buy into the concept that free speech is an important right that should be protected despite the odd moronic asshole publishing fiction dressed as the truth.

Or that by making such garbage illegal it plays into the hands of such assholes by giving them publicity to attract like-minded idiots.

The baby will be thrown out with the bath water. Oh how I lament the decline of western civilization....oh but free playboy at harvard. Woohoo!

[loki on 21.02.06 at 15:56]

Triggerfish, please stop playing games. I am talking about the wider issue of whether a government should be able to define 'truth' and 'untruth', not whether I personally believe that the Holocaust is something open to interpretation, as you well know. You made a statement to the effect that defining 'untruth' was not the same a defining 'truth', a statement that I find bizarre. The fact that you haven't come back with any argument whatsoever, apart from a rhetoric and emotive argument concerning something that I was not even addressing, tells me that you probably see the flaw in your statement.

[loki on 21.02.06 at 15:59]

Silencedogood,

Yes, it's sad that people don't appreciate that the concept of free speech means that we have to let the assholes have their say, too. I don't care how objectionable I find the KKK, Nation of Islam, David Duke, David Burch, et al: they should have the right to offend me if they want, I want the right to tell them that they are despicable assholes.

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 16:00]

"... Oh how I lament the decline of western civilization..."

The deNazification laws were passed in Germany and Austria specifically because between 1933 and 1945 Western civilisation did give way to a new Dark Age in Europe. There were well-founded fears that the Nazis could regroup and reclaim power if their heinous crimes became subject to widespread whitewashing. Are such laws still necessary in this day and age? I'm undecided on the matter. But the Germans and Austrians would seem to think so.

[JSM on 21.02.06 at 16:08]

"Shades of grey again - but this was genocide."

And the sloughter of native Americans was...what?
but, according to US history books, the pilgrims sat down and had a meal with the natives.

[Shelley on 21.02.06 at 16:18]

JSM,
Yes the slaughter of Native Americans was genocide, I'm familiar with the smallpox infested blankets given out on reservations as much as I am aware of Churchill's first use of concentraion camps on the Boers in the Boer War and the slaughter of Armenians by the Turks. I am also familiar with revisionist history. But the German and Austrian laws represent the fact that this time we couldn't hide behind a veil of law or legal interpretation. It also reflects the fact that German society had to accept responsibility. These were heinuous crimes and they couldn't be swept under the carpet with legalistic interpretation or revisionist rhetoric. That is why the law is so important here, the Holocaust is an immutable truth. It must never be open to interpretation or perversion.

[NSM on 21.02.06 at 16:19]

Why is it that no one seems to be drawing a similarity between Irving and the Danish cartoonist? Both situations have boiled down to an argument on freedom of speech. Irving has the right to his opinion, as long as he doesn't state it in Austria--so, in the definition of "freedom of speech" being defended in the cartoon controversy by the continuous publication of the cartoons, isn't Irving's freedom of speech being limited? I think that this is where those who have supported the Danish newspaper and are now supporting Irving's imprisonment need to step up and recognize their own hypocrisy. I believe that the publication of Irving's opinion was incorrect, because it served no purpose and gained only in causing pain to those who have endured the holocaust and continue to endure its aftermath. Likewise, the publication of the cartoons also showed disrespect and only promoted hatred and ignorance. I would have hoped that there would be a far greater outcry to Irving's sentence, but there isn't. Is there a difference that I don't see between the Danish cartoonist and Irving?

[silencedogood on 21.02.06 at 16:22]

Triggerfish,

I'm not being sucked in to this quagmire, but I can't let that last comment pass.

I sincerely question the need for those laws then or now and whether they were implemented based on "well-founded" fears or post-war hysteria.

1) Germany had just been decimated when those laws were passed. Anyone but a complete fool would realize it was directly related to the rise of national socialism which was fuelled by anti-semitism. There may have been a few fools left, but the mere fact those laws were passed indicates that a majority of those still alive did not support the nazis.

It may have been "possible" that the Nazis would regroup, but it was highly improbable.

2) A culture which is open to restricting free speech on one topic is more likely to be tolerant of it on another. A free exchange of ideas is much more effective at countering stupid beliefs than government intervention. See LIB in practice.

3) Any post-war denials could surely have been answered by a host of fresh and unrefutable facts at that time.

4) Repressing that type of speech just gives the deniers more ammunition to say "if we weren't exposing the truth they wouldn't care enough to repress us" which never fails to find a believer.

Look at reactions to other recent free speech issues and attempts to conceal information in the news lately.

To quote Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."

[silencedogood on 21.02.06 at 16:29]

For the record as I sign off: I supported free speech for the Dutch cartoons.

JSM, have you read any american history books or are you basing this on what you hear on TV as it appears? The ones I have read are pretty explicit in stating that the Europeans killed lots and lots of Indians. Don't forget that the indians did their fair share of killing also.

But be that as it may, the large quantities of dead native americans is due more to disease which spread in its normal fashion faster than the Europeans could travel, and the fact that they were pushed to less favorable locations, not genocide. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel for a starter.

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 16:32]

"I am talking about the wider issue of whether a government should be able to define 'truth' and 'untruth', not whether I personally believe that the Holocaust is something open to interpretation ..."

In free countries, everyone is entitled to express his opinions and everyone else is entitled either not to listen -- or to respond, as you wish to do to the likes of Burch, the KKK and David Duke. In totalitarian countries, everyone is entitled to their opinions but no one is allowed to express them except the ruling clique and their apologists. The deNazification laws were specifically designed to help prevent two newly free countries from backsliding into totalitarianism. While I am sympathetic to where you are coming from, Loki, your insistence on citing the German and Austrian laws as dangerous muzzles on free speech entirely ignores the historical context in which they were introduced. And my reference to the fact that defining "untruth" is not the same as defining "truth" might have been clumsily stated but the point was this: historians (and neo-Nazi fanatics, for that matter) are free to debate and discuss all of the details associated with the Final Solution -- how many people died in the Nazi death camps; whether the Nuremberg Laws were knowingly contrived as a prelude to the slaughter that ensued; how many concentration camps were actually transformed into death camps as part of the Nazi killing machine (thousands of internees died of disease and malnutrition in the work camps). There is no single, government-decreed "truth" about the Nazi extermination enshrined in German and Austrian law -- sholars (and fanatics) have the widest possible latitude when it comes to interpreting this defining event of the Nazi era. But they cannot publicly deny the overriding and surely irrefutable fact that the Holocaust occured. Are these laws still necessary? As I said, I'm in two minds about the matter -- altho', interestingly enough, Rwanda has been talking about adopting similar legislation to outlaw denials of the Hutu-on-Tutsi massacres in the 1990s.

[JSM on 21.02.06 at 16:37]

"Europeans could travel, and the fact that they were pushed to less favorable locations, not genocide."

So, you're denying that a genocide occured?

BTW, yes, I have read many history books, just like you. You're attempt to discredit is pathetic.

[wig n' gown on 21.02.06 at 16:40]

Whoof! There is some fun debate going on about this one. I posted my comments from over in the UK this morning. It's after 8pm over here now so I don't know if you guys are still slugging it out on the Rock.
Loki,(nice nickname, it used to be part of my email address) you responded to my post by asking against whom would Irving's comments be libelous? That is a valid point and one I would like to consider further. It seems to me that the Austrian government has taken upon itself (wrongly in my view) to avenge the memories of those killed in the Holocaust by criminalizing Holocaust denial. Accepting that Irving's views are false, could we consider instead allowing the relatives of Holocaust victims to sue Irving for libel? Unless Irving specifically mentions names of Jews who he claims were not killed, it would be hard for any family to prove that they were subject to the libel so I am forced to concede that no, perhaps the relatives could not.
Alternatively, could one argue that whilst the individual was not the victim of libel, a massive group of people were libelled against when Irving published causalty statistics that were significantly less than the historically accepted numbers? Therefore, could the victims families as a group bring a civil action against Irving? I am not familiar with class-action suits as they seem to be an American phenomena reserved for cancer patients and fat kids but might such a suit be possible?

What about an action in negligence? Could it be argued that Irving, having held himself out as a reasonably competant historian has breached a duty of care towards the victims of the Holocaust by failing to record history to a reasonable standard? Is he therefore liable? What loss and damage has been suffered by the victims' families? How does one quantify any such damage?

I come to the conclusion that all of these suggestions are trite, somewhat frivolous even and in the end, unworkable. Yet the alternative surely cannot, as I know you agree, be prison.

[silencedogood on 21.02.06 at 16:41]

I had written a response, but what's the point. It's off topic and I don't answer to you.

If you would like to call me pathetic to my face please let me know a time and place to meet you.

[JSM on 21.02.06 at 16:44]

good answer.

[Raptor on 21.02.06 at 16:48]

Loki, it’s not anyone’s “opinion that these were lies.” We’re talking about facts.

I believe in free speech, but maybe it gets to a point where this is how certain kinds of people will have to be dealt with—they’re terrorists, with words.

Same thing’s happening in G.B.

[SmokingGun on 21.02.06 at 17:04]

"For the record as I sign off: I supported free speech for the Dutch cartoons." - Silencedogood.

I'm sure the Danes will be very happy if the Dutch could take the fall! ;)

[H Reardon on 21.02.06 at 17:38]

"JSM, the difference is that it is not illegal in the States to do whatever you are accusing American History books of doing. It is illegal in Austria to do what this asshole did."

Posted by Uncle Elvis on 21.02.06 at 15:20

You are really missing the point here--is the law is just or not. I'm glad that you weren't Rosa Parks' advisor.

[Bill Cook on 21.02.06 at 17:48]

Or Nelson Mandela's !

Wonder if Conda Sleeza Rice thinks its ok to deal with him a former so called terrorist ?

The world is sinking in a sea of hypocritical bullshit !

[silencedogood on 21.02.06 at 18:34]

Typo due to haste Smokes. Typo.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.02.06 at 18:44]

Tell you what. I'm gonna take myself out of this argument. I'm far too emotionally invested in this to make a logical argument.
This guy is a right-wing anti-Semite who tried to deny the Holocaust, which makes me sick to my core, regardless of his floundering backtracking later on.
His book is dangerous. It gives neo-Nazis validation on their claims, whether it was debunked or not, just like The Protocols. He makes me sick and, emotionally, yes, I am happy that this guy is being punished. Justice? No. Vengeance? Yes.
I'm aware of the difference.
I can't be logical. Sorry. So I'm out of the debate.

[J Starling on 21.02.06 at 21:00]

I am a militant defender of the theory of evolution. I don't expect to force my views on anyone, but I stand up to defend it against ID and other creationisms. As annoying as the fundamentalist Christian disputing this theory might be, and as satisfying as it might be to have him chained and locked in a cell, its not right. I have empirical evidence and logic on my side, if not the practical evidence of evolution in nature. I don't need to resort to force. If I did, for one thing it would only draw attention to my opposer, and strengthen his support over mine. And waht if the shoe was on the other foot? I might be right, but the fundamentalists might hold the balance of power - do I want to be locked up for speaking in favour of evolution? Yes, it is sick to deny the holoucast, but do I not commit a crime by locking him up? There have been other genocides, and there may well be more to come. I do right by arguing against genocide - all genocide, not by imposing my will on others.

[Njegos on 21.02.06 at 21:08]

Question for those who approve of holocaust denial laws: Should denial of the Armenian genocide be illegal? Because that has been the official line of all Turkish GOVERNMENTS since 1915.

Now for a nice little tale about Austria. After the war, Austria tried to sue Germany for war reparations. Konrad Adenauer, who was German chancellor at the time, responded:

"Tell them I will return Hitler's corpse when I find it."

It is amusing to watch Austria point the finger.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 10:53]

Let him write the world needs more garbage like this to occupy the empty shells people call their minds.

Elvis - I never said the khazars were from egypt. I said they were/are in conflict with the so called jews or gypsies.

He isn't the first to deny the holocaust and probably won't be the last. Some argue that the so called jews aren't who they say they are. Anyway caring brings about nothing other than a ego boost that lasts as long as cheap perfume. As if history was something other than a lie agreed upon. I don't care and don't see why I should. I'm not even upset by what this sick albinoid caukasoid called David Irving wrote.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 13:03]

"Let him write the world needs more garbage like this to occupy the empty shells people call their minds."

So you are for MORE racism in the world?

"Elvis - I never said the khazars were from egypt. I said they were/are in conflict with the so called jews or gypsies."

Sorry. What you wrote was "Anyway soon as you speak on the Khazar conflict with those called gypsies (out of Egypt) AKA Jews you’re asking for a bad moon to rise". I couldn't really make out what you were saying.

I'm still not following your point. The Khazars are Jews. But you seem to be saying that Gypsies are Jews. And what does the "Out of Egypt" thing have to do with anything? Your point got a little convoluted. I just want you to clarify.

He isn't the first to deny the holocaust and probably won't be the last.

So this makes it ok with you?

Some argue that the so called jews aren't who they say they are.

I'm sorry, but I REALLY need you to expand on this. "So called" Jews? That's the second time you've said it. I want to know what you mean by this.

Anyway caring brings about nothing other than a ego boost that lasts as long as cheap perfume. As if history was something other than a lie agreed upon. I don't care and don't see why I should. I'm not even upset by what this sick albinoid caukasoid called David Irving wrote.

What if her were writing books denying slavery? What if he were publishing books that other bigots could use to argue against slavery? I'd put money on it we'd be hearing from you!

Caring makes changes. Caring makes the world change. Caring is why Martin Luther King was a great man.

By the way, there's no such word as albinoid and the other word use threw out as a racial epithet is spelled caucasoid.

This is beneath you Ethiops. Way beneath you.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 13:52]

Uncle Elvis

For one I don’t support the theory of race which would make it hard for me to want more of that which I don’t consider to exist.

You say the Khazars are Jews I and many others say that is but a theory that lacks evidence.

Am I ok with him sharing his views? Yes I am. As I’ve said before I’m used to people sharing their offensive views and have brought it down to an unaddressed part of our offensive culture.

What if his book was on slavery? I’d probably say it wasn’t the first and probably won’t be the last. Forget not that had slavery not exist neither would I. I wouldn’t place bets so quickly.

Caring is what it is and often has its roots in co-dependency. People don’t care by default if you ask me.

The word cauk was removed from history books along with dictionaries I’ve been made to understand this was the original spelling before asian was added. Remember caucaus is derived from the Ethiopian words "Caer Cush Aur."

Western mainstream history offers one side of the story you'll agree?

Nothing is beneath no one, nothing surprises me, people are people.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 14:39]

For one I don’t support the theory of race which would make it hard for me to want more of that which I don’t consider to exist.

What theory? I'm not following you.
You don't believe in racism? You don't believe people can be racist? This is news to me.

You say the Khazars are Jews I and many others say that is but a theory that lacks evidence.

I'm saying that what I have found says that the royalty of the Khazars converted to Judaism, and, again, according to what I have read, they practice Judaism. What more evidence is there? If they are practicing Jews, then, um, they're Jews...
Again... not following.

"Am I ok with him sharing his views? Yes I am. As I’ve said before I’m used to people sharing their offensive views and have brought it down to an unaddressed part of our offensive culture."

Which is what we're trying to address... just ignoring it, or saying "Let him print whatever" is doing just the opposite of addressing it. Shouldn't we BE addressing it, in order to... oh, I don't know... try to fix it?

What if his book was on slavery? I’d probably say it wasn’t the first and probably won’t be the last.

Thus not addressing it.

Forget not that had slavery not exist neither would I.

Oh, I will forget it not. Trust me. If the Jews weren't so shit on all through Europe, some of my ancestors wouldn't have been forces out of Germany and into Ireland and I wouldn't be here. That doesn't make it right.

I wouldn’t place bets so quickly.

This one, I feel safe on.

Caring is what it is and often has its roots in co-dependency.

OH! Psychobabble! Cool. Gotcha.

People don’t care by default if you ask me.

I disagree, but there you go.

The word cauk was removed from history books along with dictionaries I’ve been made to understand this was the original spelling before asian was added. Remember caucaus is derived from the Ethiopian words "Caer Cush Aur."

I'd love to see your evidence of this.
Considering Caucasus was IN Asia, I'm not seeing how Asian was added.
Can you elaborate?

Western mainstream history offers one side of the story you'll agree?

Now here we agree. And I think we agree that at least some of this history is complete and utter lies, made up by people with an agenda. The problem that I have with Holocause denial is that this is JUST what these assholes are trying to do. Rewrite history using a bunch of lies.
Just because it's happened before doesn't mean that it SHOULD happen again.

Nothing is beneath no one, nothing surprises me, people are people

Amen to that, brother!

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 14:41]

...wouldn't have been forces out... should be "...wouldn't have been forced out..."

[Njegos on 22.02.06 at 16:02]

Uncle Elvis:

Should denial of the Armenian holocaust be a crime?

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 16:19]

Uncle Elvis:

Should denial of the Armenian holocaust be a crime?

To be honest, I couldn't say. I don't have any experience with it. It doesn't really affect my life in any way, shape or form. From what I've read it was horrific, and I can see where you're coming from, athough there are many, many differences between the two, but, as I have said upthread, my feelings on the Holocaust are purely emotional. I have no emotional investment in the Amenian holocaust.
Do you see what I mean?
Logically, I guess I would be against the Austrian law, but I'm not, because I'm tied up emotionally in it.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 17:04]

Uncle

The idea that race can exist among a compatible people imo is a theory.

The khazar royals converted as a political move but, they don’t look anything close to the last King of Kings Lord of Lords him with the only so said blood link to the Solomon and the rest of them biblical figures that I believe never even existed.

Addressing it lol put a man in jail for printing fragments of his mind is addressing it. Count me out…

Invested interest in his story can lead to the birth of all kinds of resentments and so on. Therefore I only see hue manity, or at least try to. It is way too easy to select things from the past and dwell on them. I’d rather grasp more on the mystery of my story.

Psychobabble maybe, but, co-dependents are real. As well are those that sit in positions of care only to make themselves feel better off than those they are so said to be helping. It takes all types to make a world. Such is life we parasitically feed off each other at probably every level.

I take it you are unaware of the Ethiopian presence in Asia. Also, I’m sure you can appreciate that whites didn’t originate from the Caucasus Mountains.

He is a bit of a mouth full but, “blackedout through whitewash” by Suzar. Has a whole heap of info on the khazars and their history. Along with Ethiopia as well.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 17:20]

"The khazar royals converted as a political move but, they don’t look anything close to the last King of Kings Lord of Lords him with the only so said blood link to the Solomon and the rest of them biblical figures that I believe never even existed."

So no-one's a Jew? 'Cuz they don't look Ethiopian?
Ok, man, whatever you say.

I'll leave you be to believe what you like.

I take it you are unaware of the Ethiopian presence in Asia. Also, I’m sure you can appreciate that whites didn’t originate from the Caucasus Mountains.

You were referring to the origination of the word. So was I.
I'm fully aware of where we ALL come from. You're not telling me anything different here.

"Therefore I only see hue manity..."

Clever. But... um... what does it mean?
What is "hue manity"?

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 17:28]

Just read up on "blackedout through whitewash"...

Gotcha now. No need to go any further with this.

Thanks.

[Njegos on 22.02.06 at 17:37]

Uncle Elvis

It's an emotional but honest answer. You can see though how singling out one genocide for special treatment is unfair and sends the wrong message. The way you fell about the Jewish holocaust is the way many Armenians feel about their holocaust. That is why I refuse to use a capital "H" to describe the Jewish holocaust. Victims of all holocausts deserve equal respect.

Thanks.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 17:39]

Honestly I don’t care enough on the story of the khazars or Jews to go into it but, being a jew at one point meant you were of a certain blood link. Events took place then it became the free for all faith that we have today.

If you understood better the Ethiopian presence in Asia you’d get how they played a role in the origination of the word.

Hue manity is you and I my brother and all in-between regardless of the shade of their hue.

[Phil on 22.02.06 at 18:28]

Now an Israeli lawyer, Ervin Shahar, has asked Germany to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Holcaust denial.

Clearly, Mr. Ahmadinejad is an even bigger asshole than Mr. Irving. However he didn't even make his claims on German or Austrian soil. This doesn't seem to worry Mr. Shahar:

Although Mr Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust on German soil, another law passed in 2005 permits the filing of international cases in German courts.

Mr Shahar hopes the case might result in international warrants for Mr Ahmadinejad's arrest, thus preventing the president from entering the US or Europe.

I have no idea whether this is possible. But the idea that another nation could impose its laws on those who don't even live there is outrageous.

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 18:42]

What else do you expect? You opened with the fact that he's a "lawyer"... just kidding guys/gals. :)

There are going to be antagonists through-out the world, and some of them will hold high positions in their country where they are free to trash talk, but to validate them by trying to sue them is beyond ridiculous. Call them despots, ignorant nincompoops, beligerant bullies but to waste resources on frivolous lawsuits is to lower one's standards to theirs.

[Bill Cook on 22.02.06 at 18:52]

Limey

You seem to forget that the Israeli's have special dispensation.

All they really need is to call the Iranian President a terrorist and not only can they do those things but they can actually asassinate him with impunity as they have done and continue to do without consequences.

Better yet they can arrange to target someone they say is a member of an illegal organisation where the President is visiting and fire a hellfire rocket from an Apache helicopter thus not only killing the target but the president as well

Of course they would issue an apology and Condasleesa would yet again say this is not helpful etc etc.

I can give you plenty of actual cases to substantiate this important point.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 20:31]

If you understood better the Ethiopian presence in Asia you’d get how they played a role in the origination of the word.

This is what I'm asking for. I'd like to understand better what you are talking about. Point me at places I can go to learn this stuff if you don't want to teach me.

You made a start with the book you recommended. To be honest, I can't take that one very seriously as, from the looks of it, it's all opinion and vague correlation with no real facts behind it, with some bizarre claims that have nothing to do with reality, but I could be wrong. Add to that the whole "Hair is antennae" thing. Someone's gonna have to explain that one to me.

Could you point me at places where I can find out about the stuff you're talking about?
Something a little less metaphysical and more... fact-based?

I'd be really interested to learn about this.

[Njegos on 22.02.06 at 21:03]

"But the idea that another nation could impose its laws on those who don't even live there is outrageous."

I agree that extra-territoriality is obnoxious but it has been US policy in some areas for years. That's why Colombian drug dealers are doing time behind bars in the US for offenses committed in Colombia.

Whatever you may think about Ahmedinejad, he has certainly exposed Western hypocrisy vis-a-vis the NPT and the sacred cows of our "free press". And he does make a valid point - why should the Palestinians suffer for crimes committed by Europeans during WWII?

[Ethiops on 23.02.06 at 07:40]

"Add to that the whole "Hair is antennae" thing. Someone's gonna have to explain that one to me."

Uncle I love you brother more than you'll ever know. That was too funny. ;) Hair antennae haha to be honest I knew what I was getting into when I offered up that one. Gotta love it though! Nevertheless he does give an abundance of western references that coincide with his findings. http://www.saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko.htm has a good bit of short writings on the African presence around the world you have to scroll down to see them. One or two go into the Ethiopian presence in Asia give it a check it’s a good read if that.

[Ethiops on 25.02.06 at 10:44]

Uncle have you had a chance to see this documentary; A HoloHoax Analysis (by David Cole, Jewish Truth Seeker) grab it for free off torrentspy. com