BTL: Hoax-Helper Laws Are Jewish, Not Western
Posted by alex in 'hate', 'hate' hoaxes, Alex Linder, Between The Lines, holo-factualists, Holo-queens, Holocaust, holocaust racket at 5:34 pm | 
Permanent Link
From the University of Chicago student paper, the Maroon.
Censoring Holocaust denial is hypocritical
By Alec Brandon
Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007
One of my favorite rumors to emerge out of this summer’s World Cup had very little to do with soccer. The talk was that if Iran advanced past the opening round, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would make a visit to Germany to watch the team. If Germany had even allowed him into the country, they could have been obligated to arrest him. Not for inciting terrorism or his aim of wiping Israel off the map, but for his public denials of the Holocaust.
I doubt many would have actually complained if Ahmadinejad had been thrown into a German jail cell, but that is really beside the point. Holocaust denial laws litter much of Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland all have laws criminalizing the act. The punishment for denial is not insubstantial and is actually enforced quite often. The maximum sentence in Austria is 10 years, and just last year “historian†David Irving was sent to jail for three years there after pleading guilty to the charge (and admitting that he was wrong and that the Holocaust had, in fact, occurred). Also, just last month, a German court sentenced Ernst Zïndel to five years in prison for his pamphlets denying the Holocaust.
Good points. Too bad this appears in a student publication. The only mention of censorship in Europe comes from neocons — paleoyids and their fellators — bemoaning Muslim objections to the lampooning of Allah. No mention is EVER made of the fact that jews form a uniquely privileged caste in Europe – one that is beyond criticism. That is not the Western way, but, as the neocoms won’t tell you, JEWS AREN’T WESTERN. Both jew and Muslim want complete freedom to harangue and displace you, while offering you the chance to submit and worship them in return.
Sadly, these efforts to rid the world of Holocaust denial, while clearly well intentioned, are entirely counterproductive and have really only resulted in undermining Western-style liberalism.
Again, jews aren’t Western. Free speech is a Western tradition. It is a flower of Aryan culture, just as laws against free speech are a weed of the jewish soul.
Jews are totalitarians. Wherever they have the power, they will criminalize criticism of their number. They must protect their scams at all cost, and what better way to do that than to jail anyone who exposes their hoaxes? This writer is a college kid, so we’ll be gentle. Let’s just say “jew” and “well intentioned” don’t belong in the same sentence. The history of the world reveals not a single well intentioned jew. As well speak of a fast turtle or a slow cheetah. The thing is not in the thing.
You don’t have to be a political science major to know that freedom of speech is one of the most basic principles of political freedom as we understand it. For pretty obvious reasons, criminalizing the speech act of denying the Holocaust runs counter to this tenet. But it also has justified demands by other groups in Western Europe for similar protection against speech which they deem offensive.
Where jews take political control they move immediately to dismantle the freedoms and protections they enjoyed as radicals. They ensconce themselves as dictators, and empower their muddy charges out of your Aryan pockets. Their media flip reality to persuade you that all is well, but if you persist in noticing the truth, they throw you in jail. Not a single jew has ever been thrown in jail for “hate speech,” even though jewish media have fostered deliberately hateful, negative, factually wrong depictions of Whites, Southerners, Germans, Catholics, rural Aryans, and other groups – for decades.
The main group I’m talking about is Western Europe’s enormous population of Muslim immigrants. The members of this group don’t tend to be well off financially and don’t tend to be too disposed toward accepting Europe’s brand of liberalism at face value. This situation came to a head last year when a Danish newspaper published a dozen cartoons that were either blasphemous to or played up stereotypes of Muslims. The result was rioting all over Western Europe and demands on Western governments to censor publication of the cartoons.
This was a put-up job to scarify Whites into supporting the neocom agenda of Perpetual War for Israel. The fact that European countries routinely imprison men for telling the truth about jews or the history they conceal went unmentioned. It is a “free speech issue” if Europeans (read: jewish newspaper editors and cartoonists) aren’t allowed to defame Muslims; it is “hate” if Europeans (read: ordinary Whites) venture to criticize jews or correct the self-serving hoaxes they call history.
But lost in the excitement was the fact that one of the justifications Muslims used for their calls of censorship was the Holocaust denial laws that many of the relevant countries had on the books. Why, they argued, should people be free to so terribly offend Muslims, but not Jews? Somehow I doubt European leaders actually managed to provide a sufficient answer.
The answer is that there’s a double standard favoring jews. The double standard must never be mentioned. Mentioning the double standard is hate. Hate is illegal. Accept the jewish New Order or go to jail.
The question of how best to assimilate Muslim immigrants into Western society is one of the biggest facing Europe right now. They’d do well to start by actually providing the brand of liberalism that they have been trying to sell those immigrants for the past few decades.
Europe never wanted Muslim invasion. But the jews operating the European countries, serving as their immigration ministers, did. Why? Because racial muddle is good for jews, host nation’s interests be damned. So it went in Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, and the United States, which all reversed White-safe immigration law around the same time. Their populations never voted to go third world, they had third-world imposed on them by jewish dictators masquerading as democrats. Democracy = rule by jewish minority in the name of the people.
But even independent of these philosophical considerations, Holocaust denial laws fail miserably at achieving their aim.
False. They do achieve their aim: throw men in prison for telling the truth about what happened to jews in World War Two.
Any free and open society (like…hmm…all of Western Europe) has more than enough outlets through which the obvious truth of the Holocaust can be exposed. In fact, the outcry and discussion that has followed Ahmadinejad’s very prominent denial of the Holocaust has probably harmed the efforts of Holocaust deniers by reinvigorating the vast majority of Western society’s memory of those high school history lessons.
Reading jewish agitprop masquerading as history is what the average Westerner is subject to in public schools. The “Holocaust” needs laws to hide behind. The writer isn’t thinking hard enough. He’s taking the jews at face value, but there is no reason to do that. The “Holocaust” “denial” laws are not intended to prevent a Holocaust from happening again, they are to throw men in jail for pointing out that the Holocaust never happened in the first place, and that the jewish liars promoting the designer label are the blood- and brain-brothers of the jews who really did butcher tens of millions in the Soviet Union and its satellites. The author is still wet but rapidly drying. but it is likely he suspects the truth already. The jews have all the mass media at their disposal. If those and the facts are on their side, as you say, then surely all they need to do is to demonstrate Zundel’s and the others’ lies. Yet, oddly enough, they never do this. They label and imprison. Having every means to make their case, to millions, every day of the year, they resort to . . . smearing and imprisoning. In other words, they act just like people who don’t have a case. Is it possible, Alec, the jews are lying? Better question: is it possible they aren’t?
Now, compare that to a society in which a Holocaust denier isn’t thoroughly rebutted on a television news show, or made a fool of by even the stupidest of pundits, but in which he is carted off to jail. First, the denier starts to be viewed as a victim and martyr to some, which makes the act of Holocaust denial sympathetic. Second, the fact that the state would go to such great lengths to squelch denial only grants legitimacy to those who deny the truth (not to mention that it stokes Jewish conspiracy theories that often go hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial). Third, decreeing the “fact†that the Holocaust happened causes Holocaust remembrance groups to rely on the state’s punishment to achieve their aim as opposed to taking the airwaves and trying to convince people, rather than threaten them.
Are you sure you’re a college student? That above is damn near logical. Now, I’m twice your age, Mr. Brandon. I have never seen a “Holocaust” “denier” rebutted on tv. I’ve never seen one rebutted in a MSM newspaper article. I’ve only seen “deniers” smeared and jailed. These tell me about 90% of what I need to know. A little investigation, now possible thanks to the Internet, tells me the rest. What these “deniers” say is nothing more than plain truth, and they are thrown in jail because the jews must at all costs keep their Founding Fantasy.
Granted, Western Europe’s efforts to come to grips with its crimes during World War II far outpace those of Japan, which is still debating whether it actually did anything bad. But the continent has surely reached a point at which it has to stop proving to the world and itself that it isn’t about to have another Kristallnacht. It is clearly time to take these hypocritical and counterproductive laws off the books.
Again, the laws are not in place to prevent the reoccurrence of something that never happened. They are in place to throw men in jail who would speak the truth. And when are the jews going to come to grips with their crimes? The people who own the center of every major city and who brought the world finance-capital-backed communism, leading to the deaths of hundreds of millions, are not poor, persecuted victims. They are liars, hoaxers, and dictators. They are predators, and we honest Aryans are their prey.
You don’t quite realize it yet, but you are still thinking within a jewish framework, Alec. I’d urge you to rethink whether or not the people who bring us the “denial”-laws you criticize really are victims. Perhaps they are badly intentioned criminals seeking to cover up their own crimes. Crimes which dwarf in magnitude those of the people who most effectively fought against them? Think, Alec, think. False in part, false in whole. If the jews are lying about one thing, they’re probably lying about everything. The long way round is the shortest way home. That means every single term you use must be reconsidered in light of the jew’s interest in misrepresenting reality, usually by means of simple inversion, much as the brain must flip the images presented by the eye lens to get the true picture.
[Original]
3 April, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Do jews argue against NK jews? No, they burn their synagogue down. As Maimonides said, “Fire has won more arguments than reason.”
A synagogue of ultra-Orthodox Jews was destroyed by fire on the eve of Passover, raising suspicions Monday that the blaze was deliberately set to target members who participated in an Iranian-led conference on the denial of the Holocaust.
No one was injured late Sunday when flames gutted the three-story building of the group Neturei Karta. A senior rabbi and his family who lived on the top floor were not home.
Advertisement
>
But suspicion immediately fell on Jewish critics of the group, which has always been a source of tension in this heavily Jewish community north of New York City because of its anti-Israel views. The group routinely burns the Israeli flag and prays for an end to the Jewish state.
“They have threatened us, they have warned us, they have harassed us,†said Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, referring to critics. “This fire is a desecration of God’s name.â€
Investigators initially described the blaze as suspicious. But they found no sign of accelerants Monday in the charred house or any other indication of arson. Still, authorities had not ruled anything out.
“They are crazy, but no one should burn down their synagogue,†Holocaust survivor Shei Kormblue said as his family members were busy making matzo for Passover. “God will punish whoever needs punishment. It’s not up to us.â€
On Monday, charred prayer books were strewn across the synagogue’s front lawn. The writing works of the rabbi who lived there were believed to be destroyed.
Weiss called it a “tragedy†that so many holy books went up in flames. “A part of our heart and soul was taken away,†he said.
The Neturei Karta has been the target of threats in the past. Members oppose Israel because they believe there should not be a Jewish state until the Messiah comes and leads them to the promised land. They do not dispute that the Holocaust took place, but they believe Israelis have used the Holocaust to gain sympathy and advantage.
Neturei Karta members are often seen wearing black hats, coats and long, unruly beards, and heckling marchers in annual Israel Day parades in New York. They have appeared publicly with many critics of Israel, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It was the trip to Iran late last year by five members of the group that caused renewed outrage. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a “myth†and said Israel should be “wiped off the face of the map.†The visit also came amid fears that Iran may want to attack Israel.
Still, with a membership estimated to be only in the thousands, the Neturei Karta are generally tolerated or ignored, although members were greeted with a large protest at the Monsey synagogue after returning from Iran.
“Ninety-five percent of us in the community don’t agree with them, but we don’t shun them,†said David Abromevitz. “We know who they are. They send their kids to our schools and shop in our stores.â€
Monsey is an ultra-Orthodox community about 35 miles north of New York City. The streets are dotted with signs in both Hebrew and English, and businesses with names like “Jerusalem Auto Body†and “Kol Tov Pizzeria†are a frequent sight.
Neturei Karta members are often confused with the Satmars, who have a huge community in the nearby village of Kiryas Joel. But there is no connection between the two groups.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070402-1449-synagoguefire.html
3 April, 2007 at 6:19 pm
As the above shows, jews are both totalitarians and terrorists – at first resort.
Jews never argue. They smear, they jail, they torture, they burn.
They are liars, and there is nothing clean in any of them.
NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.
3 April, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Who will defend our free speech?
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 02/04/2007
Have your say Read comments
Did you know that it will soon be possible for someone to be imprisoned in this country for something that is not a crime here? Neither did I, until I went along to a meeting of the European scrutiny committee in the House of Commons last week for an extraordinary insight into how measures of constitutional significance are handled.
Many British regulations and laws originate in Brussels. The precise proportion is a matter of dispute. The Government says it is about 50 per cent; the European Commission says it is less than 10 per cent. Some Euro-sceptics believe it could be 70 per cent or more.
Unlike laws that start life in Whitehall, there is a different procedure for their enactment. They are argued over in the councils of Europe, often for years, with little input from national parliaments until they pop out as fully formed directives which the parliaments are then obliged to pass into law.
advertisement
In the UK, the progress of these putative directives is monitored by the European scrutiny committees of the Commons and the Lords. These are largely unsung bodies, rarely visited by the media, whose prodigious output reflects the volume of regulations with which they have to deal.
The one device they have to stop the executive simply agreeing to anything in this country’s name is known as a scrutiny reserve. When they are unhappy with a proposal they can require it to be debated in Parliament, usually in a committee. Until the reserve is lifted, the proposed directive cannot be agreed by a minister at the European Council. Or that’s the theory.
Last autumn, the Government indicated that it wanted to sign up to a new EU scheme under which prisoners would be transferred, without their consent, to their country of origin. With a prison service bursting at the seams, this was a good deal because we have more EU nationals in our jails (2,000) than they have UK nationals in theirs (800). So a reciprocal agreement could theoretically release some 1,200 places.
However, the scrutiny committee wrote to Joan Ryan, the Home Office minister responsible for European matters, to register concern about the proposed arrangement. They pointed out that a British subject jailed in, say, Austria for the offence of Holocaust denial could be compulsorily transferred to a British prison and incarcerated here for something that is not a crime here.
As the committee observed, this “bizarre consequence” arose because the deal does not contain the safeguard of dual criminality. This used to prevent the extradition of people for something that is not a crime in the UK; but it was dropped for 32 offences – including Holocaust denial – when the European Arrest Warrant was introduced three years ago.
This is not an academic point. A British citizen, David Irving, has been jailed in Austria for precisely this offence and, under these prisoner transfer arrangements, could have been locked up in Wormwood Scrubs for something that we do not regard as a crime, even if it is totally batty and objectionable.
The committee said this issue should be debated by Parliament and placed a scrutiny reserve on the proposed agreement. But a few weeks ago, the opportunity arose of a quick deal at the EU justice and home affairs council, attended by Ms Ryan.
Did she tell her counterparts “I’m sorry but we cannot agree this until our Parliament has debated it”? Er, no. Britain signed up, John Reid hailed it as “an excellent result for the UK” and the scrutiny committee was left looking ridiculous.
At the hearing last week, Ms Ryan felt the full blast of its anger, with the Labour chairman Michael Connarty especially exercised. The privileges and rights of Parliament were being ignored, he said. Poor Ms Ryan, who had been thrown to the wolves, expressed her regrets. “The Home Secretary has the highest respect for this committee and its scrutiny role,” she said, loyally.
This has happened before, on a similar issue, when the European arrest warrant, stripped of its dual criminality protection, was agreed by Tony Blair at an EU summit despite a scrutiny reserve placed on it by the Lords.
But, hey, who cares what Parliament thinks? These matters are going to be agreed anyway by the European elites so why let the small matter of a debate by MPs and peers get in the way? By the time the standing committee did discuss the deal, it was too late. Nothing could be changed and the measure is due to come into force next year.
There is, of course, a way to avoid the “bizarre consequence” of jailing someone for Holocaust denial in Britain when it isn’t a crime here and that is to make it a crime here. This is what the German presidency of the EU is pressing for at the moment, supported by the European Commission.
They want the offence, which applies in several countries, extended to the rest of the EU and to be punishable by up to three years in prison. The proposal includes minimum jail sentences for the use of the swastika, which would have been bad news for a certain party-going Royal a year or two ago and seems to ignore the fact that the symbol – also known as the Fire Cross – has been embroidered on Latvian knitwear for centuries and is a good luck symbol for Hindus.
At a time when the lunatics running Iran are ratcheting up the anti-Semitic rhetoric and sponsoring conferences in Holocaust denial some might find the German proposals attractive. Shortly before he took office 10 years ago, Tony Blair saw a “very strong case” for making Holocaust denial illegal and pledged that a Labour government would give it “active consideration”.
This may have been another example of the Prime Minister telling his audience (he was attending an Anne Frank memorial exhibition) what it wanted to hear because he has quietly dropped the matter since.
But it does suggest the Government is open to an idea that is thoroughly inimical to this country’s tradition of free speech. No doubt if Parliament wishes to have its say on the matter, it will be fully consulted.
Have your say
Print this page as text only
Email this story
Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Comments
Parliament is very unlikely to pass a Holocaust Denial Act. It would offend the moslems!
Posted by Freddie on April 2, 2007 5:44 PM
Report this comment
I too have known about this for several years, and am amazed that journalists like Philip Johnston are only just waking up to the true horror of what it means to be a “citizen of the EU”.
Posted by M.Stringfellow on April 2, 2007 5:14 PM
Report this comment
It’s an absolute outrage that the Government, elected on a number of maifesto points, acts ultra vires and without regard to the wishes of the electorate. We are over-regulated to the degree that I fear will bring the Law into disrepute and foster anarchy and a vigilante society.
Posted by Vic Shirman on April 2, 2007 5:06 PM
Report this comment
You are now enlightened as to the joyus benifits that membership of the EU bestowes upon us.
Posted by Mike on April 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Report this comment
We don’t have free speech in the UK and I’m glad. Free speech would make it acceptable to incite racial hatred, tell lies about people as if they were facts, incite terrorism etc. We should outlaw holocaust denial, and we should outlaw fascism in all of its forms, whether it be white fascism or Islamic fascism, it should be outlawed and punishable with sentences of over a decade in jail.
Posted by Senior on April 2, 2007 3:56 PM
Report this comment
Can’t we simply explain to George W Bush (always the best way) that the real “axis of evil” and threat to democracy is, in fact, in Brussels. That should do it.
Posted by Peter John on April 2, 2007 2:34 PM
Report this comment
If the assorted Acts that form are constitution are fact then WHY HAS NO LAWYER/BARRISTER dared to challenge the illegal imprisonment/fines. Surely there must be; out there in the legal profession; some one whose love of the Law and our country will cause some action – oh yes PRO BONO; I’m sure that there would be plenty of help forthcoming. Or – as I suspect – are all the legal profession now so subverted that they really do not believe in justice any more ?
Posted by pete on April 2, 2007 2:32 PM
Report this comment
No wonder the Tories are a laughing stock…and as
for UKIP!
David Irving is a particularly nasty piece of work.
Posted by K McGee on April 2, 2007 2:26 PM
Report this comment
This is the proverbial “Pandoras box”.
The French have recently made it illegal for citizens who are not professional journalists to video any act of criminal violence on their own initiative. As happenned in the Rodney King case in the US. They have for a long time had very onerous laws concerning photography whereby every person who’s face appears in a photo must have been consulted before the picture can be used ( at public events, everyone has to be notified in advance, in theory ) and also architects must consent before a photograph of their work can be sold.
Evidently, legions of holiday snappers would risk arrest were it not that such laws presumeably are not enforced but selectively. However, experience shows that many regulations ignored in the rest of Europe are rigorously enforced in the UK. Would it not be likely that the same will apply to the enforcement of crazy laws ignored in their country of enactment.
What if Turkey eventually joins? There it is an imprisonable offence to criticise Turkey!And that WAS recently enforced in the trial of one of their leading authors.
Posted by Tom Dixon on April 2, 2007 1:41 PM
Report this comment
If you want to know who will protect our free speech then look to the history books wherein the decisions of centuries are contained not in the napoleonic metric codified laws so beloved of Les Continentals and beyond.
They have no great love of a Common Law system which has spread its beneficial arms around the world into our Old Colonies and Dominions of the beloved Empire.
It is the desire of lawyers to be seen as those who know best and would have us all merely one of the colourless multi-pot-pourri of this and all the countries which would make up the Socialist State of Eurograd.
These lawyers are of course always right as how could it be otherwise we have no knowledge and experience of these matters.far better you do as they want and conform.For those who ask questions there are always new laws to be enacted.If you do nothing wrong there is nothing to fear as you each pass along the streets being screened by the portals registering your presence.
Before these foreigners came into England we were doing alright but now they have controls.When it stops will be when you no longer see your children going on higher education because there is no need as all the immigrants have the skills needed.
You go off to the assembly plant to do the job as directed by the Controller.
Only fiction?
Think again.
You can only be warned so many times.
Posted by David Albion on April 2, 2007 1:12 PM
Report this comment
Surely it’s a bit late to whinge about European legislation affecting Britain which appears to involve crimes not valid in our country?
Haven’t we already signed a quite astonishingly one-sided extradition deal with the US which was supposed to be about terrorism but has been used to haul white-collar crime suspects from Britain to the United States?
This is happening despite it being neither in the spirit of the Treaty nor reciprocal in nature.
What does this say about the ability of the present government to see and understand what they are signing on Britain’s behalf?
Posted by simon coulter on April 2, 2007 12:36 PM
Report this comment
I don’t understand what the big deal is with this proposal.
UK citizens held abroad, such as David Irving, would surely rather be held in the UK than abroad… for ease of visiting if nothing else.
Similarly, foreign nationals held in the UK for an activity allowed in their country – say a Dane who sold illegal pornography in the UK – would probably be better off in their own country.
Finally the governments and taxpayers probably save a lot of time and effort (e.g. translators, diplomatic administration etc).
So who exactly looses out if the scheme is enacted?
Posted by Stuart on April 2, 2007 12:36 PM
Report this comment
More evidence that we need a formal Constitution. Not in the sense of high flown words which can provide well paid work for lawyers in Court; but in the sense of clear governance arrangements which provide controls on the Executive and the Prime Minister, a Parliament which represents its electorate, but is also constrained to reflect the history and diversity of its people, an independent judiciary, police and armed forces, and a free press. If we had this, instead of the dog’s breakfast caused by European legislation, devolution, reform of the Lords, and the nightmare that is local government funding, we would not need to worry about the strange obsessions of the Austrian political classes.
Posted by Phil Cowburn on April 2, 2007 12:35 PM
Report this comment
We DO have a constitition, although it seems that the current gang in Westminster are able to ignore it.
Act of Supremacy 1559
Declaration of Rights 1688 (this cannot be repealed by Parliament)
Bill of Rights 1689
The details can be found easily enough. Anybody reading through the salient points must come to the conclusion that our politicians have a great deal of answering to do.
Posted by M Bond on April 2, 2007 12:33 PM
Report this comment
People in South Wales and other areas of the UK are already in fear of being used as Human Guinea Pigs as part of an untried and unsafe experiment involving the carriage of LNG for the European Market. With Putin dabbling in this project and wheeling and dealing in Quatar makes us “dispensable subjects” for Global greed.
Who will be jailed for the South Wales “Holocaust” when the hole (that HSE has built in to the risk)
generates that catastrophe.
Posted by Meirion on April 2, 2007 12:28 PM
Report this comment
Yes, Philip Johnston, I did “know that it will soon be possible for someone to be imprisoned in this country for something that is not a crime here.” I knew about it at least four years ago as I belong to both UKIP and the Freedom Association. I hope the coffee you have just woken up to smell is still retaining its aroma.
Better Off Out!
Michael Schwartz.
Posted by Michael Schwartz on April 2, 2007 12:21 PM
Report this comment
When taking an overview, this article is but another example of this nulabor government taking advantage of a device that restricts personal freedoms, in this case freedom of speech.
This point is important for a nulabor government that has insisted upon controlling the flow of information in its own favour, with prejudice and sanction ruthlessly and relentlessly applied to anyone arbitarily deemed to be a potential threat.
This nulabor government has long since exceeded the Orwellian nightmare. It depends upon secrecy, and its continuing policy of manipulation of perception. But why?
This nulabor government is corrupt.
Posted by martin brighton on April 2, 2007 12:03 PM
Report this comment
It’s good to see concern about the way we are ruled [sic] whether by our own disfunctional government or by the vast and unaccountable bureaucracy of the EU.
I’m with those who want a written constitution, proportional and *accountable* representation and the rule of law.
We also should reconstitute the independent grand jury. It’s purpose was to act as a watchdog on government, which probably explains why it was abolished by Parliament in 1933.
Posted by Suzon on April 2, 2007 11:57 AM
Report this comment
Those ‘revisionists’ who support the non-teaching of the holocaust are, in effect, denying it.
Ironically, these are the very same people who were happy to see the historian and Holocaust denier, David Irving, go to prison in Austria for his outspoken views on the Holocaust.
But then hypocrisy and selective (dis)approval is an ingrained trait of these liberofascists – indeed, it is a pre-requisite to joining their club.
Free speech subject to their approval and on their terms only is not free speech. We either have it or we don’t – and clearly we don’t!
Posted by Lickyalips on April 2, 2007 11:47 AM
Report this comment
by Nick Palmer MP on April 2, 2007 9:12 AM
…. hang on.. your a supporter of an education policy that denies the Holocaust by not teaching it in school…
and a supporter of the EU where there are at least 3000 committees that are TOTALLY unscrutinised
and… the OVERRIDE
an EU device allowing them to bypass the UK parliament and avoid scrutiny of EU Directives.
Used 350 times in the last 10 years . Used 77 times in 2005 (51 times when parliament was in dissolution for the general election and 17 times during the summer recess)
HOW can YOU JUSTIFY the OVERRIDE IN A DEMOCRACY ??
Sounds like you should be joining the UKIP if you are serious in your views of both national interest and scrutiny.. after all that’s what UKIP wants.. local scrutiny of local laws !!! national scrutiny of national laws…
Posted by Adrian Jones on April 2, 2007 11:22 AM
Report this comment
Is Nick Palmer by any chance a Labour MP
He seems to be toeing the party line so assiduously that I would put money on it.
Anyway, his party has done as much as Adolf Hitler to destroy free speech so adding holocaust denial to the list would make little difference.
I would, however, point out a couple of famous contradictions to the idea of making Holocaust denial a crime
As Popper put it – a fact only remains a fact until it is disproved
As Voltaire said – I disapprove of everything you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.
When we cannot say what we think, however wrong others may think it, we cease to be free
Posted by Adrian H on April 2, 2007 11:18 AM
Report this comment
the idea of freeing up places in our jails this way looks very sensible.added to the ligitimate places freed up,we could pardon those like in the example and have more space.
Posted by steve d on April 2, 2007 11:16 AM
Report this comment
How do they get away with it? Or rather, why do you Brit’s submit to these stupid dictates? But further – it seems that “Blair’s last stand†at the EU will be craven surrender and acceptance of the proposed constitution which is being regurgitated by the Germans. So, despite rejections by a few members following referenda, the constitution is back on track, and past-his-use-by-date Blair will accept it, on Brit’s behalf, without any discussion with them and no referendum. May I ask – what the hell’s up with you people? Don’t you mind being screwed right left and centre? Have you given up – totally?
Posted by ex pat Ron in NZ on April 2, 2007 11:13 AM
Report this comment
One thing we should notice is the brutal disproportion with which the totalitarians on the continent seek to stamp out views of which they disapprove whilst practically ignoring lesser matters, such as violent crime. Seven years in Austria for Irving – who had recanted – whilst an attempted murder + gbh in Germany may be punished by as little as two years’ gaol. These primitive standards will of course in due course be compulsorily spread across the Union.
On another point, I was told by a German MP last week that something like 70 % of German legislation is in fact from Brussels.
I suspect, therefore, that the Commission is lying when it puts out the 10 % figure, and am minded to say so now, before doing so is made illegal.
Posted by Peter Harvey on April 2, 2007 11:10 AM
Report this comment
The laws of Xenophobia are exactly like the laws of NuSpeak in Orwells 1984.
Dont just VOTE but also JOIN the UKIP party to show the government / EU we are serious about leaving the EU..
After the disgraceful stitch up from the Phillips report where the three failed political parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberals) all get OUR money to pay for their incompetence, UKIP gets NO money despite being the only party of choice if you want to leave the EU.
Of course the EU funds the BBC to promote the EU (EU Investment Bank funding loans) yet you dont see the Electoral Commission demanding that money be seized… just like the failure to demand the Liberal Democrats return £2.4 Million donated from an overseas shell company owned by a man now in jail for purjury….
UKIP is being targeted because its the ONLY democratic non-racist party advocating withdrawalfrom the UNELECTED UNAUDITED UNCONTROLLABLE EU. Even the MEPs admit that the 90 seconds of free speech they are allowed is insufficient to control it.
UKIP also advocates trading with the world on favourable terms .. and for the scaremongers amongst the pro-Europeans.. we did better off staying out of the EURO despite all your scares at the time.
Norway is so much better off out that even after the oil runs out it has a fully funded pension scheme that will last 100 years at the current time !!!!!!! Our pension scheme (if you have one) is lucky to last 100 minutes thanks to robber brown.
Posted by Adrian Jones on April 2, 2007 11:08 AM
Report this comment
It is time to demand that our Constitution take precedence over all others. We have a great Constitution and it worked for 800 year but was ignored when new Labour came into power. When people start to claim to be a “good European”, obey all their laws (and Germany says the EU instigates 94% of them) can fine us if we do not obey, decide where prisoners shall serve their sentence, then it is time to say we have allowed the EU to go too far. The EU as a whole has only this week signed a TREATY on behalf of 27 countries, yet Treaty signing in this Country is done by the use of the Royal Prerogative. Who dare to give that to the EU? For those that want to be Good Europeans should go and live on the Continent, for the time has come for a government we actually pay wages to for Governing US should actually do so. Soon our Parliament will have NO SAY, for they have very little now-they just go through the motions.
Posted by Anne on April 2, 2007 11:06 AM
Report this comment
If laws are made behind our backs,legislation made on the sofa in secret,we are lied to constantly and we loose the freedom of information act,free speech will not matter as we will not know what to talk about anyway.
Posted by JohnP on April 2, 2007 10:57 AM
Report this comment
What Britain (and the EU) need is a First Amendment to protect free-speech but there is little chance of it happening. Not in EU because they have gone too far down the road of thought and speech censorship and not in Britain because we have not even a constitution to amend. Although why not draw one up and, while we are doing so, incorporate the principal of the 1st Amendment into the text?
Posted by Diagoras on April 2, 2007 10:44 AM
Report this comment
What will it take to awaken the lethargic Brits, an atom bomb.?
I repeat, a right wing government is needed for a clean sweep. Either Winston or Adolph would have eaten a lDoug Jacquesot of this government for breakfast.
Posted by Doug Jacques. on April 2, 2007 10:43 AM
Report this comment
Colin Liddell,
The canary didn’t go down the coalmine to sing at the presence of gas; it went down to die at the first sniff,(a bit like free speach) thereby warning the miners to the presence of gas.
Posted by MH on April 2, 2007 10:42 AM
Report this comment
There is no free speech in the UK. For example; the BBC(?) had a programme on this very subject about a woman who read out a list of people killed in Iraq and was charged with a criminal offence. When the BBC journalist reprised the act no charges were brought. [Other people may have a better memory of this].
A certain political party attracting votes in recent General Elections and having elected councillors is effectively being proscribed. That party was denied civic rights in Aberdeen. If that party why not the Tory’s?
Voltaire said that though he disagreed with every word a man said he would fight for his right to say it. There would be freedom of speech. That freedom is absent in the UK. Lots of people have commented on this in lots of forums.
We are now slaves to the State. And we need to be protected from the State.
The Commons is the Government’s poodle. We need a forum to protect the people from Government and the Commons is not it. Once again the USA sets us a better example. A written Constitution and a Court to enforce it.
So far as Europe is concerned we should pull out of the Union. To be at peace with and to trade with all nations should be our goal. To be in thrall to any nation should be avoided. George Washington said something along these lines. He was right .
Posted by David Morrison on April 2, 2007 10:40 AM
Report this comment
I understand that the swastika has nasty historical connotations, but so does the crucifix (after all, it was an instrument of torment and horror long before Christians used it as a banner in the crusades or the horror of the inquisition). The end point of this process of banning anything that may possibly cause offence to the delicate sensibilities of the pure of mind is a uniform dress code for all, a state of mass conformity. It is this regimentation of thought that underpins all forms of socialist government, where multiculturalism is somehow exchanged for homogenism and the oppression of thought. We must resist now, for we won’t be able to later.
Posted by Mike on April 2, 2007 10:30 AM
Report this comment
Old Basque building often have swastikas on them. It is an old Basque symbol which far predates the Nazis. As for the tune of the Horst Wessel song I believe it was used by the German Salvation Army before being a hymn to a man killed in a brawl over a prostitute.
Posted by Frederick Jones on April 2, 2007 10:13 AM
Report this comment
Does anyone still believe the “holocaust” industry? Surely now it has the same sort of credibility as so called global warming?
Posted by S. Barnes on April 2, 2007 10:05 AM
Report this comment
Another important reason for supporting the Freedom Association’s cross-party, non-party, Better Off Out campaign, linked here: link
Posted by Denis Cooper on April 2, 2007 10:05 AM
Report this comment
This proposal has been kicking around for years. Yet another reason for the UK to leave the stinking mess that is the EU. Let’s get out and get out soon !
Posted by Andrew Cramb on April 2, 2007 9:56 AM
Report this comment
The swastika was adopted by Latvia and Finland before the Nazi Party in Germany adopted this symbol as part of their regalia. As a sanskrit device, it was on the spine of all books by Rudyard Kipling before he discontinued using it in protest to the activity of the Nazi party in Germany. The Finns swapped their blue swastika in 1944 for a more “allied” roundel when they changed sides in World war 2. My grandfather was given an award by the Latvian President in the 1930s, and this included a framed inscription complete with no less than 6 swastikas. My aunt unashamedly diplays this in her house in California, which is of course beyond the jurisdiction of the EU.
Posted by Nick R on April 2, 2007 9:15 AM
Report this comment
There are two separate issues here. One is the question of whether it makes sense for people to serve sentences in their home countries. It obviously does – for their sake (if you were Irving, would you rather be stuck in Austria?) as well as the national interest (why should we have the cost of imprisoning someone else’s criminals?). The second is the scrutiny issue. Committees are always annoyed to be bypassed so I think Connarty made a fair point. But I’m entirely certain the proposal would have been approved, since it makes sense all round, even if you don’t agree with the EU in general.
Posted by Nick Palmer MP on April 2, 2007 9:12 AM
Report this comment
I suspect that this newspaper would be bitterly unhappy at the Foreign Office if it made no attempt to bring UK nationals serving prison time overseas back to the UK.
As other comments have very wisely pointed out, other countries have laws and UK nationals need to respect them. Just because the speed limit is set at a certian level here does not give me a right to assume that that speed limit is universal.
Posted by Dara on April 2, 2007 8:50 AM
Report this comment
After watching Nigel Farage, on question time last week.I was very impressed with him.Unlike the rest of the liberals, and marxists on the panel.Did anyone notice the business woman of the year on the panel,she did not have a clue about any of the subjects debated.What was she doing on this programme?.And as for Tessa Jowell, if there is one person who is as deceitful,scheming, and spineless as Gulag it has to be her.After reading this horrifying article. UKIP gets my vote in future.
Posted by banachech on April 2, 2007 8:46 AM
Report this comment
What free speech?
Even the Telegraph doesn’t publish letters & comments by well informed contributors if they do not conform to current claptrap such as “global warming”, “multicultural society”…
I could go on forever.
Posted by Ben Stanley on April 2, 2007 8:28 AM
Report this comment
Complacency will get us what we deserve
Everything worth having has to earned & fought
for.
Posted by gordon Sturman on April 2, 2007 8:13 AM
Report this comment
Imagine what could happen if an Islamic country joined the EU!
Posted by peter on April 2, 2007 8:00 AM
Report this comment
Readers of the Telegraph should examine this story carefully. This is not in any way the fault of the EU. It is the fault of the weak system of controls in British constitutional law. The EU cannot make any laws of this type unless the UK agrees to them.
Posted by Mod on April 2, 2007 7:53 AM
Report this comment
Extraordinary Rendition
Posted by TomTom on April 2, 2007 7:33 AM
Report this comment
Which is precisely why we should all vote UKIP in the next elections and get the ball rolling on withdrawing from the EU. Enough said. This not a debatable issue. Do your duty and your part to get your country out of this horrid stinking mess which Labour has sunk us deeper into.
Posted by The Man on April 2, 2007 7:26 AM
Report this comment
Quite correct. One wonders whether John Reid is, to quote a well-known phrase, ‘fit for purpose’. The situation is worse than Philip Johnson implies. Any position that controls what words are used of necessity controls freedom of thought. The shackles of Political Correctness (an American import, I believe) is Stalinism in action. Those of us who cheered when the Soviet Union crumbled (the death of Communism) were unfortunately badly mistaken. The next thought crime will be ‘global warming denial’.
Posted by Ian Burgess on April 2, 2007 7:22 AM
Report this comment
There hasn’t been free speech in Britain ever since we’ve had political correctness. It’s the exact opposite concept and the Left are the ones behind it.
Posted by Rupert on April 2, 2007 7:05 AM
Report this comment
I was very interested in the heading of the article, because free speech is one thing that Nulabour and the EU seem very keen on attacking, until I saw the content. When it turned out that it was yet again about David Irvine, I turned right off.
Yes, it is ridiculous that the Austrians deny free speech. But Irvine knew this full well, he knew that there was a law against the sort of things he was going to say. He did not have to go to Austria. He therefore got exactly what he deserved.
Under such circumstances, I for one would object to one penny of British tax payers money being used to protect his welfare while he was banged up by the Austrians. I earnestly hope that rigorously zero man hours of consulate time were used on his behalf.
Similarly, since he had to serve the sentence anyway, through his own stupidity, why not serve it here rather than there? On the one hand, I’d rather that Austrian tax payers money was being used to keep him banged up, but if on average we give away 2000 and receive only 800 in return, then it seems like an excellent deal.
I do not like this idea of people going to a foreign country in order to break the laws there for purposes of proving a point.
In August, Mel Smith (an Englisman and hence a foreigner) decided that he did not like the Scottish legislature with regard to smoking and seems to have taken a trip north of the border, to a foreign country, with a view to breaking the law there. Fortunately, he chickened out at the last minute, before the cigar smoking scene in his play. But the noises he was making beforehand were rather ugly.
Posted by jmn on April 2, 2007 6:40 AM
Report this comment
Dear Sirs,
A thoughtful piece of journalism by Mr. Johnston. Mr. Blair has frequently usurped the procedures of Parliament to suit his own rhetoric, announcing matters that should come from the result of debate, rather than a presidential style press announcement outside parliament. Apart from being a tiresome example of self gratification, it poses questions of accountability. Yet another example is the comment almost off hand that the way forward in Britain to solve the increasing demand for power is to go nuclear. There is a considerable weight of engineering arguement here coupled with social reluctance, all of which is dismissed in a Blairite statement based on the vested interests of the nuclear lobby. The issue of course is not whether we go nuclear, but the rules and procedures of government which are abrogated at the Prime Minister’s arrogance and whim.
So whom do we look for to protect our rights? Well, the truth of it as Mr. Blair the lawyer and a barrister for free advice in the form of his very talented wife, knows perfectly well, is that we do not have any. Where is it written that we have certain rights protected by Parliament? The EU proposed such a constitution which was immediately and cleverly sabotaged by cynically proclaiming that our Constition was in danger by Brussels. What Constitution? If one exists, it is in the mind of the politicians who seem to contravene what we imagine it to mean whenever it suits them. Our ‘Rights’, are the will of Parliament which has been suborned to Brussels. That is in accordance with what we signed up for, regardless of what any protestant believes to the contrary. So the next time the EU Constitution raises its head again, as it will, please think more carefully next time. These are real rights in black and white, enforcable by constitutional power from which we cannot remove. Forget the political hype from any politico concerning this, because the alternative is indeed what we have in this country-nothing!
Posted by Vivian J Phillips on April 2, 2007 6:19 AM
Report this comment
Becoming a criminal is so easy these days that it is no longer anything to be ashamed of. Not only that, the more crimes there are, the more criminals there will be and the less successful the police will be in prosecuting them. Real criminals will benefit at the expense of politically incorrect criminals.
Posted by Joe on April 2, 2007 6:12 AM
Report this comment
I am the son of a Holocaust survivor. I believe David Irving suffered far more humiliation when the High Court threw out his libel suit against Deborah Lippstadt. Imprisoning him and other Holocaust deniers as well as others with “beyond the fringe” views only allows them to become figurative martyrs for their terrible causes. It is far better to humiliate them in the arena of public scrutiny than to use criminal punishment for what is essentially a speech issue.
Posted by Kenneth Barr on April 2, 2007 5:43 AM
Report this comment
The problem with free speech is that it reveals all too sharply the contradictions of Britain and the EU’s attempt at global multiracial multiculturalism. This is why it is very important to politicians and bureacrats to shut everyone up.
People who say things some Jews don’t like will now have to join British nationalists gagged because they complain about the colonization of their islands by foreigners, and also our own Islamic clerics, who now face jail for stirring up Jihad, something that is almost a holy duty for a great many of them.
My own view is that total free speech – hatred, lies, and all – is the canary in the coalmine. It helps to reveal the ultimately incompatible elements and trends of a society and allows us to change direction to mitigate the root of the problem, for example by suggesting changes in immigration.
Stifling free speech just throttles the canary in the coalmine so that you only learn about the big danger later on.
A good example is allowing the proportion of our Islamic population to grow. If we stifle the mullahs, they might stop calling for jihad and declaring fatwahs againsts enyone who opposes their medievalism, but this will only paper over the cracks until they have enough numbers and power to act out their jihadist fantasies.
I would much rather have them preaching their hate and intolerance openly so that the British people will wake up to what’s in store for them if they allow the Islamification of Britain. The same goes for neo-Nazis and other groups whose basic human rights are threatened by such legislation.
If there is gas in the mine, let the canary sing, no matter how unpleasant we think its squawk is. Instead our politicians prefer an artificial silence before the explosion.
Posted by Colin Liddell on April 2, 2007 5:36 AM
Report this comment
Let us all try and free a prisoner held in a British jail by the Sherif of Nottingham if the sentence is not an offence under English Law. If caught in the act of freeing such a prisoner, what offence has Robin Hood committed and how will he be dealt with by an English Court?
Posted by Brian Lewis on April 2, 2007 5:26 AM
Report this comment
The UK legislators are studying plan to curb freedom of speech. EU parliaments are taking similar step.However , parties involved wiil have to consult each other.
KARLDEAN
Posted by Karldean on April 2, 2007 5:25 AM
Report this comment
You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.
Doesn’t that date me? What was previously
freedom of speech has become “justifying
terrorism” or “Holocaust denial”. And what about
“Horst Wessel Lied” the unofficial Nazi anthem? Is
playing that a slammer-time offence, too? Keep
in mind Napoleon banned la Marseillaise. What’s
it going to take to get you sorry-assed, risk-
adverse losers off your complacent butts and
planning your exit strategy? The only thing that
would temp me to get anywhere near Europe
would the UK post-revolution street parties.
Posted by Andrew Milner on April 2, 2007 5:05 AM
Report this comment
Surely since 50% of legislation is effectively a rubber-stamp, it is time that our MPs went part-time. This could be a useful cost-saving exercise.
Posted by Duncan Jeffery on April 2, 2007 5:04 AM
Report this comment
Someone should tell the EU that the last time someone tried to circumvent parliament heads rolled.
Posted by Christopher in California on April 2, 2007 4:03 AM
Report this comment
English Law has come down to us through the centuries and been discussed and debated and found to be fair.
Continental Law is always in the form of a Napoleonic-like Directive or Diktat which is what they have been used to.
There is no discussion and no debate.
It is time we rid ourselves of these “shackles of European slavery”.
Posted by SAM HARE. on April 2, 2007 3:18 AM
Report this comment
The new regulations mandating incarceration “at home” for non-citizen criminals is deeply offensive for another reason: it mandates disparate treatment for criminals who violate a member country’s laws depending on the accident of their nationality.
If Jim (Irish citizen born and raised in the UK) and Patrick (German citizen brought up in the UK) both commit football violence in Berlin, Jim will be forced to spend his sentence in Ireland (where the EU rules say he “belongs”).
Patrick will spend his sentence in German jails which are said to be of a much higher standard than in the UK.
Does anyone really believe that two years in, e.g. a Romanian jail is the same as two years in jail in Finland or Sweden?
Posted by Erasmus Rotterdamus on April 2, 2007 3:13 AM
Report this comment
The final sentence of this article – “No doubt if Parliament wishes to have its say on the matter, it will be fully consulted.”
Tell us another one, eh?.
Posted by Herbert Thornton on April 2, 2007 1:35 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/02/do0202.xml
3 April, 2007 at 6:55 pm
WE’RE THE ‘TRUE JEWS,’ SAY SECT MEMBERS
By RITA DELFINER
PrintEmailDigg ItStory Bottom
April 3, 2007 — The anti-Zionist group whose Rockland County synagogue went up in flames is a tiny ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect whose activist members have embraced Israel’s enemies.
The Neturei Karta, or “Guardians of the City,” believe God ordered Jews banished from the Land of Israel and that it is heresy to end the exile and create the state of Israel until the Messiah arrives.
“The true Jews are against dispossessing the Arabs of their land and homes,” the group’s Web site says. “According to the Torah, the land should be returned to them.”
David Pollock, associate executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said Neturei Karta members “do what they can to support enemies of Israel, including the PLO and Iran . . . They would be very happy to live in Palestine under Arab rule.”
Last December, Neturei Karta sparked fury in the Jewish community when several members attended a Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran sponsored by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
Neturei Karta has publicly denied it supports Holocaust-denial.
The Satmar Hasidim also are anti-Zionist. But the chief judge of the Satmar Rabbinical Court, Grand Rabbi Zalmen Leib Teitelbaum, denounced Neturei Karta for attending the conference, declaring it was “on a downward spiral with acts of lunacy.”
[email protected]
3 April, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Kikes, all of them, have no business here bringing their internal and external feuds to our land.
There’s an izzrael day in NYC? I say it becomes a traget for some seriously large White protesting.
3 April, 2007 at 10:58 pm
When force, violence, or characer assassination is used to silence a person it is an admission that what they have to say cannot be refuted or ignored
4 April, 2007 at 10:23 am
The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the Muhammed smear cartoons, is a jew named Flemming Rose. It was his project.
Flemming Rose is a close friend of the Israeli right-wing columnist Daniel Pipes. The Palestinian envoy to Washington, Afif Safieh, charged in an interview that the two had planned to cause a scandal in order to turn the West against Muslims, and thereby against Palestine.
The Palestinian Afif Safieh is a Christian. Would Israel ever send a Christian as an embassador to a foreign nation? Would Israel place a Christian in any high office at all? In the Muslim world, Christians have often achieved high positions; like the Catholic Tariq Aziz, minister of foreign affairs under Saddam Hussein. That evil, Islamist Saddam Hussein.
It is true that Jews love noone but themselves. They are neither Western nor Eastern, only Jews.
4 April, 2007 at 11:30 am
“Grand Rabbi Zalmen Leib Teitelbaum”
Grand Rabbi…LMAO. Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Kikes. I’ve got to see a picture of this guy.
4 April, 2007 at 11:35 am
Wow: a regular son of satan, he’s. Classic rat faced hebe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalman_Teitelbaum
http://img.search.com/thumb/9/92/Rabbi_And_Ruv,_Smiling._Tnuam.jpg/180px-Rabbi_And_Ruv,_Smiling._Tnuam.jpg