Freedom of expression in Europe?
-
exists only for making caricatures of certain religion's prophet, but for even simple disagreement with generally held views about a historical event, that which happened in the past and doesn't affect most people of the world today, lands an individual in jail.
WOW!!! Freedom of expression! exists in europe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial
Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years By VERONIKA OLEKSYN, Associated Press Writer
45 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison, even after conceding he wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
ADVERTISEMENT
Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived in court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books — "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving told the court before his sentencing, at which he faced up to 10 years in prison.
He also expressed sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."
But he insisted he never wrote a book about the Holocaust, which he called "just a fragment of my area of interest."
"In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis," testified Irving, who has written nearly 30 books.
The court said Irving had three days to appeal his sentence. His lawyer did not immediately say whether he planned to do so.
Irving, 67, has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews. He has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.
The convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
Irving's trial came amid new — and fierce — debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered deadly protests worldwide.
Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said last month the controversial Third Reich historian was getting up to 300 pieces of fan mail a week from supporters around the world and was writing his memoirs in detention under the working title "Irving's War."
Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in the southern Austrian province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989. He was charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.
Irving had tried to win his provisional release on $24,000 bail, but a Vienna court refused, saying it considered him a flight risk.
Within two weeks of his arrest, he asserted through his lawyer that he had come to acknowledge the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers. Before the trial began, Irving told reporters he now acknowledges that the Nazis systematically slaughtered Jews during World War II.
"History is like a constantly changing tree," he said.
In the past, however, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and he has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish population on such a massive scale.
Vienna's national court, where the trial is being held, ordered the balcony gallery closed to prevent projectiles from being thrown down at the bench, the newspaper Die Presse reported Sunday.
It quoted officials as saying they were bracing for Irving's supporters to give him the Nazi salute or shout out pro-Hitler slogans during the trial.
In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist."
Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.
In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax. -
It is this sorta shit that drives the Muslims crazy - disparity in the application of laws and the contradiction in Western believes. If you are advocating freedom of speech in it's purest form, I believe anything and everything should be allowed to be said - be it the holocaust or drawing caricatures of Mohammed or any other religious figure for that matter. If there are to be restrictions, it has to be put in place aross the board. No talk of the holocaust, no caricatures of Mohammed. This is not even abt whether it is morally right or wrong to deny the holocaust or publish caricatures, it is abt a believe, it is abt their definition of freedom of speech.
-
Not just in Austria, but it is also a CRIMINAL offence to deny the holocaust in France and Germany. Sorry, no freedom of opinion when dealing with the Jews and the holocaust.
By the way, there is a blasphemy law in the UK which prohibits blasphemous libel against the Church of England. A judge said that blasphemous libel was committed 'if a publication about God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible used words which were scurrilous, abusive or offensive, which vilified Christianity and might lead to a breach of the peace'.
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others. -
By the way, I believe there are limits to freedom of speech but I believe there must be a level playing field. Remarks that are offensive to Jews, Muslims or Christians must all be banned.
-
ban the offensive remarks made by fanatical Muslims in mosques first, they are the most prolific abusers.
-
That is true.Originally posted by Salman:ban the offensive remarks made by fanatical Muslims in mosques first, they are the most prolific abusers. -
hahahhahha fun to see the hypocrite play the devil's advocate.Originally posted by Salman:ban the offensive remarks made by fanatical Muslims in mosques first, they are the most prolific abusers.
how many of you been to mosques to know first hand what abuses exist there? btw freedom of speech? wasn't that the justification for caricatures? what next? hypocrites! -
Freedom of speech is a wonderful theory, I like the thought of it too! But when applied to the real world, irresponsible people who are unable to comprehend the spirit of the law have to be taken by the letter of the law.Originally posted by protonhybrid:hahahhahha fun to see the hypocrite play the devil's advocate.
how many of you been to mosques to know first hand what abuses exist there? btw freedom of speech? wasn't that the justification for caricatures? what next? hypocrites!
There is freedom of speech in USA, but are they allowed to shout "FIRE" in a crowded building? If they are not allowed to do so, is there still freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech laws usually say something about, "you can say anything you like, but others can still take you to court and sue you". Others being the state or individuals.
Posting caricatures of the prophet, muslim leaders and clerics all over europe can sue the newspaper for their seditious and irresponsible action.
Did the muslim leaders choose to do so? NO! They chose to kill those they didn't like. They even murdered those who had nothing to do with this incident. Catholic priests, americans, in indonesia even chinese get attacked! Why, just because they are not muslims!
How do you justify these killings? Are they acceptable? What did the catholics do to warrant another priest's life? What did the americans do this time? -
Let's not waste time debating on remarks made "in" mosques. There is enough evidence of muslim leaders calling for the death of "infidels" and christians in the public domain. What next? hypocrites!Originally posted by protonhybrid:hahahhahha fun to see the hypocrite play the devil's advocate.
how many of you been to mosques to know first hand what abuses exist there? btw freedom of speech? wasn't that the justification for caricatures? what next? hypocrites! -
imo the zionists and the "self-guilt" europeans are taking this whole thing too far...which may explain the widespread dislike of jews and westerners..but again..those are just a pretty substantial handful of black sheep.
-
There is no freedom of speech when you are on someone's else property unless the building is yours. Therefore you only have freedom of speech when you are on your own property. Go and shout all you want on your own property. The owner of the building can force you out of his building whenever he wants to.Originally posted by SilverPal:Freedom of speech is a wonderful theory, I like the thought of it too! But when applied to the real world, irresponsible people who are unable to comprehend the spirit of the law have to be taken by the letter of the law.
There is freedom of speech in USA, but are they allowed to shout "FIRE" in a crowded building? If they are not allowed to do so, is there still freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech laws usually say something about, "you can say anything you like, but others can still take you to court and sue you". Others being the state or individuals.
Posting caricatures of the prophet, muslim leaders and clerics all over europe can sue the newspaper for their seditious and irresponsible action.
Did the muslim leaders choose to do so? NO! They chose to kill those they didn't like. They even murdered those who had nothing to do with this incident. Catholic priests, americans, in indonesia even chinese get attacked! Why, just because they are not muslims!
How do you justify these killings? Are they acceptable? What did the catholics do to warrant another priest's life? What did the americans do this time? -
Does unfair western practices and lack of freedom of expression make it ok to kill priests and christians? Does that make it ok to destroy american embassies? Does it allow the indonesian muslims to kill chinese?Originally posted by Libertarian:There is no freedom of speech when you are on someone's else property unless the building is yours. Therefore you only have freedom of speech when you are on your own property. Go and shout all you want on your own property. The owner of the building can force you out of his building whenever he wants to.
I'm not directing this post at Libertarian but at proton. I'd like him to tell me what makes it ok to kill. -
This illustrates the importance of giving them an effective forum to voice their discontent and the necessity ofealing with their sensitivities. When westerners ride roughshod over their deeply held beliefs in the name of 'freedom of expression' and worse, display such hypocrisy when dealing with their own religious and cultural values, they incite anger and a demand for redress. When these calls are unheeded, the demand for an apology ignored, when the blasphemy laws protect only the church of England and not other religions, what avenues are left for Muslims?Originally posted by SilverPal:Does unfair western practices and lack of freedom of expression make it ok to kill priests and christians? Does that make it ok to destroy american embassies? Does it allow the indonesian muslims to kill chinese?
I'm not directing this post at Libertarian but at proton. I'd like him to tell me what makes it ok to kill.
Violence is always wrong but I daresay these angry people have not been left with many peaceful and effective options. Muslims are living with a siege mentality as it is...if we continue to provoke them and our laws leave them feeling helpless, some misguided and desperate people might turn to violence. The fact that the entire world is discussing this issue now most unfortunately indicates that these violent acts have indeed drawn our attention at last.
Unbridled freedom of expression cannot be allowed if we want people of all races and religions to live peaceably with each other. If we insult and defame a living person, we have the libel laws to deal with them. If someone insults a religion, we need blasphemy laws or maintenance of religious harmoney act to deal with them. But the law must be fair and act against all offenders, regardless of religion or race. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The blasphemy laws in England protects the church of England. That is to be expected. Likewise in islamic countries, stringent religious laws protect islamic rules and regulations too. Even in singapore, there is a syria court to cater to these islamic laws. You do not see hindu courts, buddist courts or catholic courts do you?
This illustrates the importance of giving them an effective forum to voice their discontent and the necessity ofealing with their sensitivities. When westerners ride roughshod over their deeply held beliefs in the name of 'freedom of expression' and worse, display such hypocrisy when dealing with their own religious and cultural values, they incite anger and a demand for redress. When these calls are unheeded, the demand for an apology ignored, when the blasphemy laws protect only the church of England and not other religions, what avenues are left for Muslims?
Violence is always wrong but I daresay these angry people have not been left with many peaceful [b]and effective options. Muslims are living with a siege mentality as it is...if we continue to provoke them and our laws leave them feeling helpless, some misguided and desperate people might turn to violence. The fact that the entire world is discussing this issue now most unfortunately indicates that these violent acts have indeed drawn our attention at last.
Unbridled freedom of expression cannot be allowed if we want people of all races and religions to live peaceably with each other. If we insult and defame a living person, we have the libel laws to deal with them. If someone insults a religion, we need blasphemy laws or maintenance of religious harmoney act to deal with them. But the law must be fair and act against all offenders, regardless of religion or race.[/b]
Did the relevant high profile clerics really try to take the danish newspaper to court? Did they REALLY try to sue the relevant parties? Or did they assume that it won't work and went ahead with terrorism instead?
You are right that these acts of terror has drawn the world's attention to these muslims, for all the wrong reasons. Now more than ever, many non muslims and caucasians are going to errorenously assume that all muslims are terrorists (WHICH IS NOT TRUE). Many govts are going to take more stringent steps to control muslims in their countries which might add to the feeling of oppression by the immigrant muslims.
Perhaps, like the migrant chinese all over the world, the muslims should try to mix with the indigneous citizens of their host country and try to live more in a global village rather than continue to slam the door in the faces of the "infidels" and wonder why doesn't anyone else understand them. -
I forgot to add...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Unbridled freedom of expression cannot be allowed if we want people of all races and religions to live peaceably with each other. If we insult and defame a living person, we have the libel laws to deal with them. If someone insults a religion, we need blasphemy laws or maintenance of religious harmoney act to deal with them. But the law must be fair and act against all offenders, regardless of religion or race.
If the muslims are so concerned about freedom of speech against their religion, perhaps they have to start looking at their own "freedom of speech" against other religions.
They have been speaking badly of jews and christians for many generations. Are there laws to protect those jews and christians in islamic countries? -
Originally posted by SilverPal:
There is a big difference. The Sharia court deals with Islamic matters concerning Muslims. Likewise the Anglicans have their own Ecclesiastical courts that deal with religious matters but only Anglicans are subject to them. The British blasphemy law applies to all within its jurisdiction, regardless of the religion of the offender.
[b]The blasphemy laws in England protects the church of England. That is to be expected. Likewise in islamic countries, stringent religious laws protect islamic rules and regulations too. Even in singapore, there is a syria court to cater to these islamic laws. You do not see hindu courts, buddist courts or catholic courts do you?
Did the relevant high profile clerics really try to take the danish newspaper to court? Did they REALLY try to sue the relevant parties? Or did they assume that it won't work and went ahead with terrorism instead?
b]
If blasphemy against Islam is not a legal offence in Denmark (neither is it in Singapore), how do you sue the relevant parties? They do not have to assume...they know it will not work. -
If anyone were to portray Jesus or Moses as a terrorist or womanizer, you could expect the Muslims to protest as well. Both of them are prophets in Islam as well. Incidentally, there is a big difference of degree between people who vilify adherents of a faith and those who berate prophets of the faith.Originally posted by SilverPal:I forgot to add...
If the muslims are so concerned about freedom of speech against their religion, perhaps they have to start looking at their own "freedom of speech" against other religions.
They have been speaking badly of jews and christians for many generations. Are there laws to protect those jews and christians in islamic countries? -
The law of blasphemy is an ancient law that is AFAIK not enforced. It is a christian country after all what do you expect? But the fact that it is not enforced shows us something. Western society has evolved to accept freedom of speech as being fundamental.
I for one would like to see the law repealed, but I recognise the wisdom if leaving it as it is. Why cause trouble for yourself when there is not need to?
About the crime of denying the holocaust, it can be explained simply as the west putting the sanctity if human life above religion.
As well, Some here seem to have missed the point of the argument. Nobody is saying that you cannot have laws banning the depiction of Mohhamad (PBUH). What is said is that you should not expect the rest of the world to bow before your laws. -
Jesus, Mary and Moses have often been depicted in derogatory ways in Europe, yet Muslims never protest or rioted.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If anyone were to portray Jesus or Moses as a terrorist or womanizer, you could expect the Muslims to protest as well. Both of them are prophets in Islam as well. Incidentally, there is a big difference of degree between people who vilify adherents of a faith and those who berate prophets of the faith.
These fanatics seem to elevate Muhamad to some kinda idol. This is definitely unislamic. -
I stand corrected.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a big difference. The Sharia court deals with Islamic matters concerning Muslims. Likewise the Anglicans have their own Ecclesiastical courts that deal with religious matters but only Anglicans are subject to them. The British blasphemy law applies to all within its jurisdiction, regardless of the religion of the offender.
If blasphemy against Islam is not a legal offence in Denmark (neither is it in Singapore), how do you sue the relevant parties? They do not have to assume...they know it will not work.
But it IS possible to put diplomatic and religious pressure on the offending parties rather than making them pay with human lives. There is always a way other than violence. The muslim world is very big and rich. -
Jesus have been portrayed as a dog and as a gay. I have heard european jokes about this.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If anyone were to portray Jesus or Moses as a terrorist or womanizer, you could expect the Muslims to protest as well. Both of them are prophets in Islam as well. Incidentally, there is a big difference of degree between people who vilify adherents of a faith and those who berate prophets of the faith.
Also, the Da Vinci code insinuates that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, a woman that the Bible claims to be a prostitute. It said that she is the holy grail and that he "drinks out of her". Think for a while what this suggests.
How come the muslims have not called for extermination or to kill these evil people since they mocked their prophet? They seemed to keep quiet about all these. -
how many muslims have actually read and understood the qu'ran? it's just like the catholics during the dark and medival ages where the bible was in latin and only the top brass of organised religion could have access to these scriptures, resulting in ignorant masses being manipulated by religious leaders for their own agendas.
-
I'm glad that catholism have progressed on. Now the bible is the most widely read book and printed in the most languages.Originally posted by vito_corleone:how many muslims have actually read and understood the qu'ran? it's just like the catholics during the dark and medival ages where the bible was in latin and only the top brass of organised religion could have access to these scriptures, resulting in ignorant masses being manipulated by religious leaders for their own agendas.
Perhaps muslims should read the quran for themselves instead of always listening to what others tell them is in the quran.
Religious people, not just muslims (myself included), should learn to think for themselves rather than always following their religious leaders' words blindly. -
i will advice you to tone down your postings about our muslim counterparts. Why make those in the forums angry when everything is so calm right now? Are you seeking for trouble? I hope this is the last time i hear anything regarding the muslim issue from you.Originally posted by Salman:Jesus, Mary and Moses have often been depicted in derogatory ways in Europe, yet Muslims never protest or rioted.
These fanatics seem to elevate Muhamad to some kinda idol. This is definitely unislamic. -
They do read but even the Arabs cannot understand it cos the Quran is written w/o chronology and is jumpy in its presentation.Originally posted by vito_corleone:how many muslims have actually read and understood the qu'ran? it's just like the catholics during the dark and medival ages where the bible was in latin and only the top brass of organised religion could have access to these scriptures, resulting in ignorant masses being manipulated by religious leaders for their own agendas.