EU wants to jail those who "trivialize" holocau$t

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

EU wants to jail those who "trivialize" holocau$t

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:30 pm)

It's coming...order all Revisionist books while you still can.

EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial
By Tobias Buck in Brussels
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-1 ... 10621.html

April 17 2007

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.

Diplomats in Brussels voiced confidence on Tuesday that the controversial plan, which has been the subject of heated debate for six years, will be endorsed by member states. However, the Baltic countries and Poland are still holding out for an inclusion of “Stalinist crimes” alongside the Holocaust in the text – a move that is being resisted by the majority of other EU countries. [Not all "denials" are created equal.]

The latest draft, seen by the Financial Times, will make it mandatory for all Union member states to punish public incitement “to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”. [No "sexual orientation"? Hmmm...]

They will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.

Diplomats stressed the provision had been carefully worded to include only denial of the Holocaust – the Nazi mass murder of Jews during the second world war – and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

They also stressed that the wording was designed to avoid criminalising comical plays or films about the Holocaust such as the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni’s prize-winning Life is Beautiful . The text expressly upholds countries’ constitutional traditions relating to the freedom of expression. [LOL Black is white and white is black.]

Holocaust denial is already a criminal offence in several European countries, including Germany and Austria. It is not a specific crime in Britain, though UK officials said it could already be tackled under existing legislation.

In an attempt to assuage Turkish fears, several EU diplomats said the provisions would not penalise the denial of mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman troops in the aftermath of the 1915 collapse of the Ottoman empire. Turkey strongly rejects claims that this episode amounted to genocide.

The proposal draws what is likely to be a controversial distinction between inciting violence against racial or ethnic groups and against religious groups. Attacks against Muslims, Jews or other faiths will only be penalised if they go on to incite violence against ethnic or racial groups, the draft text states. [Can someone explain this mumbo-jumbo to me?]

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."

"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"

C.G. Jung

theTRUTH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:47 pm)

February news reports said England and Denmark would vote against this witchcraft-trial type of law? Why did they change their vote?
"Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation..." Moshe Sharett, Israeli's Foreign Minister ('48-'54), & Prime Minister ('54-'56).

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:57 pm)

Maybe it has something to do with Jewish lobbying. We all know how much they love the truth.
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:04 pm)

There is absolutely no relation between violence and 'holocaust' Revisionism.

Recall that judeo-supremacists claimed that Mel Gibson's film ' Passion of Christ' would cause violence against Jews too. What whiners.

In fact, it is violence against Revisionists that is very real.

Revisionist, Professor Dr. Robert Faurisson of France after being attacked by judeo-supremacists.

Image

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:11 pm)

Also see:

'many in EU resisting efforts to imprison Thought Criminals'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4102

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

theTRUTH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:57 am)

So British, Danish, and Italian politicians have caved to Jewish lobbyists and will take away their citizens free speech in the April 19th vote.
EU close to agreement on hate crime law

18.04.2007 - 09:29 CET | By Renata Goldirova

After six years of heated political debate, EU member states are set to agree on a common anti-racism law, under which offenders will face up to three years in jail for stirring-up racial hatred or denying acts of genocide, such as the Holocaust.

One diplomat in Brussels confirmed to EUobserver that the controversial piece of law is in its final-tuning phase and is likely to gain EU blessing at a justice and interior ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday (19 April).

The latest draft – cited by the Reuters news agency - foresees an EU-wide jail sentence of at least one to three years for "publicly inciting to violence or hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin."

The same rules would also apply to people "publicly condoning, denying, or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes" as defined by international crime courts.

According to the Financial Times, such wording has been carefully chosen to only include denial of the Holocaust during the second world war, as well as the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, but would not criminalise denying mass killings of Armenians during the Ottoman empire in 1915, something that Turkey strongly opposes labelling as genocide.

The draft of the legislation is "the lowest common denominator," an EU diplomat told EUobserver, as the differences in national legal systems relating to freedom of expression also had to be respected.

For example, denial of the Holocaust is already illegal in Germany and Austria , while for example in the UK it is allowed under freedom of speech rules, unless it specifically incites racial hatred.

Stalinism – a final stumbling block
However, an ultimate breakthrough is highly dependent on a demand voiced by four new member states.

Poland and the Baltic countries - all carrying the burden of a repressive communist past - continue to hold on to their demand that "crimes under the Stalin regime in the former Soviet Union " become part of the bill's scope.

"We believe Stalinist acts of genocide should be condemned in this document. It would put them on an equal footing with Nazi crimes in an international forum," an Estonian diplomat was cited as saying by the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita.

On top of this, Warsaw would like to attach a unilateral declaration condemning "distortions" of the past, namely the use of the phrase "Polish death camps" to talk about Nazi death camps on Polish territory.

However, "very, very many people are against this [to put Stalinism into the main body of the hate crimes text]," a German diplomat said, according to Rzeczpospolita.

According to an EU diplomat speaking to EUobserver, it is more likely that the law would see "a reference to the crimes of totalitarian regimes," with a final proposal to be tabled today.

If a deal is struck on Thursday (19 April), it would be a major success for Germany, currently sitting at the EU helm, which sees an EU-wide law combating racism and xenophobia as a moral obligation due to its historical background.

The proposal has been stuck in the legislative pipelines since 2003.

http://euobserver.com/9/23885
"Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation..." Moshe Sharett, Israeli's Foreign Minister ('48-'54), & Prime Minister ('54-'56).

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:19 am)

Everyone should realize the EU 'parliament' members are not elected by a vote of the various countries citizens. The citizens of each country have no say in the formation of Thought Crime laws. That is not democracy, it is legislation without representation.

Thought Crime laws such as this are proof that Revisionists are right.
"Only lies need protection of government, truth can stand on it's own"

Thomas Jefferson


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Henry
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:23 pm

Postby Henry » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:56 pm)

I remain unafraid. The minute they try to enforce this ridiculous excuse for a law in Britain, the backlash will be so enormous they'll introduce a motion in the Commons to withdraw from the EU.

Trust me. Not in England.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:30 pm)

Via Majority Rights: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/web ... ng/#c42800

I think that this post from Steven Palesee explains why the adherents of "Political Correctness" need their god Hitler and the Holocaust:

I don’t think it’s necessary to make up a label for this fifth abramic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now Political Correctness) since everybody already calls these religious freakazoids the “Politically Correct”.

As I posted a minute ago in the Chinese nationalist thread, and as I’ll never tire of repeating, Political Correctness is a religion, i.e. a structured belief system based on faith. A religion need not have a god, although Political Correctness appears to have one. Its god is Hitler, an altogether evil god that is despised by its followers. In this respect Political Correctness is similar to the Aztec religions whose evil gods had to be appeased with constant human sacrifice. The evil god Hitler needs to be kept at bay with constant discrimination against whites.

The doctrine of Political Correctness measures everything against this god, the evil Adolf Hitler. In this religion, everything that Hitler believed in is evil, and everything that he opposed is good. This belief system condenses to two doctrines:

* Non-white minorities are to be worshipped in the morning
* The white majority is to be degraded in the evening
And is based on this one cardinal faith:

Whites are oppressors; therefore whites deserve discrimination and racism to redress the imbalance.

This faith is in turn sustained and legitimised by three anti-white racial theories:

1. The Unique History of White Evil theory
2. The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
3. The White Majority Deference theory

The Unique History of White Evil Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade history”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.
The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites are privileged”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The White Majority Deference Theory

This racial theory holds that “majorities must serve minorities”. It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

And to keep their evil god Adolf Hitler at bay these religious freakazoids believe they have to keep calling for more and more sacrifice:

Sacrifice your borders! Sacrifice your free speech! Sacrifice your safe neighborhood! Sacrifice your children’s opportunities! Sacrifice your heritage! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!

Why? Because The Evil God Adolf Hitler must be kept at bay! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Lest he ARISE and BLOT OUT THE SUN!! and stomp cars with his feet! And gas Jews with his farts!! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!
And don’t you dare violate the Great Sacred Truth,

“If you go against your group interests while black you’re an uncle tom, if you do so while white you’re open-minded. Amen. If you express group interests while black you’re standing up for your people, if you do so while white you’re racist. Amen.”
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:22 am)

The latest, excerpts:
The proposed rules, which still have to be vetted by national parliaments, calls for up to three-year prison sentences for those convicted of denying massacres defined as genocide by the International Criminal Court, including the Holocaust and the mass killings in Rwanda in the 1990s.

The [unsupportable claims of] mass killing of Jews during World War II was the only [alleged] genocide specifically mentioned in the rules. Demands from Baltic nations that major Stalinist atrocities be included were rejected. [Of course, judeo-supremacists were at the heart of these.]

full text:
[notice the misleading link and title, 'racism']
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_ ... /eu_racism

EU nations agree to new racism rules
By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press Writer
4/19/07

European Union nations agreed Thursday on new rules to combat racism and hate crimes across the 27-nation bloc, including setting jail sentences against those who deny or trivialize the Holocaust.

A compromise deal on the rules was reached by EU justice and interior ministers after nearly six years of negotiations, officials said.

The proposed rules, which still have to be vetted by national parliaments, calls for up to three-year prison sentences for those convicted of denying massacres defined as genocide by the International Criminal Court, including the Holocaust and the mass killings in Rwanda in the 1990s.

EU justice and interior ministers said the rules call for criminalizing "incitement to hatred and violence and publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

The mass killing of Jews during World War II was the only genocide specifically mentioned in the rules. Demands from Baltic nations that major Stalinist atrocities be included were rejected.

German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries, whose country holds the EU presidency, said a compromise was reached to organize a public debate on genocide and other hate crimes not mentioned in the draft rules.

The rules were significantly watered down from an original proposal drafted in 2001. Member states can opt out of criminalizing massacres not defined as genocide by the international court.

Reaching a deal had been difficult amid vastly different legal and cultural traditions. Whether to criminalize genocide denial had been a key sticking point. Several countries, including Britain, Italy and Denmark, had been concerned the new measures would undermine freedom of expression.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

theTRUTH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:28 pm)

The (new laws)...still needs the backing of national parliaments and the European Parliament
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/850644.html

Groups all over the world need to help finance public awareness campaigns by British, Danish, and Italian free speech advocates to let government members know if they vote to stiffle free speech they will be voted out in the next election.
"Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation..." Moshe Sharett, Israeli's Foreign Minister ('48-'54), & Prime Minister ('54-'56).

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:16 am)

Does this mean that someone may soon be able to publish a book on the murder of tens of millions of Christians, the execution of the Romanovs, the destructions of the thousands of Christian churches, the killing of thousands of priests and nuns, and all other such horrible events brought about by the Lenin /Stalin reign of terror without the fear of being killed, imprisoned of otherwise destroyed in the process? Or will it still be forbidden to tell the world how a gang of mostly Jews created the communist revolution and many of the worst crimes in the history of mankind.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
diaz52
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Postby diaz52 » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:03 pm)

friedrich braun wrote:Via Majority Rights: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/web ... ng/#c42800

I think that this post from Steven Palesee explains why the adherents of "Political Correctness" need their god Hitler and the Holocaust:

I don’t think it’s necessary to make up a label for this fifth abramic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now Political Correctness) since everybody already calls these religious freakazoids the “Politically Correct”.

As I posted a minute ago in the Chinese nationalist thread, and as I’ll never tire of repeating, Political Correctness is a religion, i.e. a structured belief system based on faith. A religion need not have a god, although Political Correctness appears to have one. Its god is Hitler, an altogether evil god that is despised by its followers. In this respect Political Correctness is similar to the Aztec religions whose evil gods had to be appeased with constant human sacrifice. The evil god Hitler needs to be kept at bay with constant discrimination against whites.

The doctrine of Political Correctness measures everything against this god, the evil Adolf Hitler. In this religion, everything that Hitler believed in is evil, and everything that he opposed is good. This belief system condenses to two doctrines:

* Non-white minorities are to be worshipped in the morning
* The white majority is to be degraded in the evening
And is based on this one cardinal faith:

Whites are oppressors; therefore whites deserve discrimination and racism to redress the imbalance.

This faith is in turn sustained and legitimised by three anti-white racial theories:

1. The Unique History of White Evil theory
2. The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
3. The White Majority Deference theory

The Unique History of White Evil Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade history”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.
The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory

This racial theory holds that “whites are privileged”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The White Majority Deference Theory

This racial theory holds that “majorities must serve minorities”. It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

And to keep their evil god Adolf Hitler at bay these religious freakazoids believe they have to keep calling for more and more sacrifice:

Sacrifice your borders! Sacrifice your free speech! Sacrifice your safe neighborhood! Sacrifice your children’s opportunities! Sacrifice your heritage! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!

Why? Because The Evil God Adolf Hitler must be kept at bay! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Lest he ARISE and BLOT OUT THE SUN!! and stomp cars with his feet! And gas Jews with his farts!! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!
And don’t you dare violate the Great Sacred Truth,

“If you go against your group interests while black you’re an uncle tom, if you do so while white you’re open-minded. Amen. If you express group interests while black you’re standing up for your people, if you do so while white you’re racist. Amen.”


Steven's essay is excellent: interesting, thought provoking, and I have to say I think it has a lot of merit, IMHO. It certainly has a different take on this PC thing. Fascinating essay Steven :!: :!:
-You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-The establishment can't control the web, and the control of information through all means but one, is no control at all.

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:23 am)

There should be a law against anyone who tells lies, mocks, trivializes, exaggerates anything about the holocaust. Anyone writing a book, making a movie or otherwise making statements about the holocaust should have to declare how, what and why they based their work. Holocaust hoaxes should not be allowed to go unchallenged and those willingly participating in such should be exposed and punished.

The millions of Jews who had their lives all but destroyed, who were forced to leave Europe, and the several hundred thousand Jews and the 50, 000,000 others who died during that war have the right to have the truth told about this terrible event.

It is for this reason that the entire holocaust should be open to a factual, historical, scientific , logical investigation about what really happened. The truth has nothing to fear.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:08 am)

This is Irving at his best as he warns the world what the non-democratic EU has in mind. He talks of a system which legislates any opposition away, a system which demands obediance to judeo-supremacism.

Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Read on.

- Hannover
April 7, 2007 (Saturday)
London (England)

I AM TOLD that in today's Times (April 7) the poo-obsessed Times
columnist Giles Coren has revealed that his doctor has told him that
he produces an excess of bile. His writings about me of late suggest
that he had no real need to seek medical expertise to learn this.

MORE seriously, the German Government has quietly admitted that over
the last twelve months it prosecuted over 18,000 Germans for offences
of "right-wing extremism," of which only a few hundred involved
actual violence: i.e. they prosecuted over seventeen thousand
thought-crimes -- people unwitting displaying the old swastika
emblem, or even worse, National Socialist ideas, and perhaps even
"denying the H."

As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently pointed out in a
courageous editorial, most of these new criminal records have been
sprung on ordinary citizens blissfully unaware of the criminality of
their actions and thoughts, because the tame German media are too
cowardly to report any of these cases -- even the major trials like
those involving the revisionists Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.

These absurd laws themselves are protected by fresh layers of other,
even more absurd, laws making it impossible even for court-appointed
attorneys to provide an adequate and conscientious defence to those
accused under the thought-crime laws. Any German or Austrian lawyer
who does, can be -- and frequently is -- himself ordered arrested by
the judge, for having associated himself with these criminal thoughts
and deeds. Zündel's court-appointed defence attorney Sylvia Stolz
(right) made herself unpopular with the prosecutor for "hampering the
prosecution," and is now to be prosecuted for so hampering. Go
figure, as the Americans say.

More than once my chosen Austrian lawyer, Dr Herbert Schaller, left,
arrived in the Vienna prison with fresh horror tales from Zündel's
Mannheim courtroom -- the judge Meinerzhagen had warned him that if
he asked certain questions of the court, or made certain defence
motions, he too would be arrested.

I remember that in January 1993, when I was tried in Munich under
Germany's laws for the suppression of free speech, one of my three
lawyers turned up apologetically on the morning of the hearing
apologizing that he could not continue to act for me, as the Munich
Bar Association had threatened him with dismissal -- i.e. the end of
his career -- if he did. He showed me their actual letter. I was
fined thirty thousand deutschmarks, around twenty thousand dollars,
for uttering a single sentence which the Polish authorities now
belatedly admit was true.

I NOTICED when I was in Viennese prison that the jailhouse, built to
hold eight hundred malfeasors, currently held 1,400 inmates, a
quarter of them Blacks. It was a tight fit but it was possible,
provided we did not all breathe at the same time.

This morning I have received a letter from Frau K., an elderly
Viennese lady in her nineties. Exercising what is the constitutional
right of every citizen in most other countries, on September 27 of
last year she had written a personal letter to the President of
Austria, one Herbert Fischer -- a small, straw-haired gentleman of
even smaller character and endowed with all the intellect and bearing
of Lady Chatterley's gardener -- to protest against my arrest, trial,
and imprisonment. "What D. I. said was right," she wrote in one
passage of this incriminating letter.

She received no presidential reply? Right. -- She heard no more? Wrong.

On March 8 the Austrian criminal authorities sent her a letter fining
her the sum of 200 euros under penalty of jail for having written
these seditious words to their august president. No trial, no
hearing, no defence -- no lawyer would have dared to defend her
anyway.

This is the new Europe, coming soon to
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests