French Gayssot Act

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

French Gayssot Act

Postby astro3 » 6 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:48 am)

France’s Gayssot act of 1990 made it an offence ‘to contest the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945'. This was the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set down the laws and procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were conducted, establishing the new categories of crime that were to be applied retrospectively: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I don’t see how anyone can be convicted of ‘denying the Holocaust’ on this law.

The Nuremberg judgement was laid down in 1946, but this Gayssot Act relates merely to the category of crime to be used: surely Revisionists must welcome the category of Crimes against Humanity – and hope the Bush and Blair get prosecuted for it – they in no way need to doubt or ‘contest’ that category, through whatever process of historical enquiry they are led.

Its Article 9 states that people will be punished:
qui auront contesté… l'existence d'un ou plusieurs crimes contre l'humanité tels qu'ils sont définis par l'article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l'accord de Londres du 8 août 1945

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id

I’m not agreeing with Faurisson that:
'It [the Gayssot Act] provides for a prison sentence of up to a year as well as a maximum fine of €45,000 for anyone who publicly disputes the reality of one or more “crimes against humanity” as defined and ruled on, essentially, by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg in 1945-1946.'
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... t-law.html
Were that the case, then it would indeed clobber any Revisionist. It would be more or less just as bad as the German law. If it were a crime to question the judgement of Nuremberg (1946) then all French Revisionists would be in deep S***. However, this is not the case.

I’m not agreeing with Wikipedia that the Act
'makes it an offense in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945,' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act
There is nothing about questioning ‘size’ of crimes against humanity, the law pertains merely to the several categories of crime - ‘size’ would have no meaning in this context.

NB, Article 6 of the London Charter defined the crimes on which basis the Nuremberg trials were to be held:
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/v ... 3ae6b39614
but does not suggest that anyone is guilty of those crimes.

ivam
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:08 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby ivam » 6 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:57 am)

isnt there a new statement from 2011 from the Human rights organisation anyways that now protects the freedom of speech especialy for historical events ?

I know its in paragraph 49 but dont remember the actual name of the meeting where it was decided. just know it was 2011, since this declaration it would violate human rights to be prosecuted for holocaust denial, world wide - which should act as a "free from jail/court" card.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:40 am)

astro3 wrote:France’s Gayssot act of 1990 made it an offence ‘to contest the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945'. This was the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set down the laws and procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were conducted, establishing the new categories of crime that were to be applied retrospectively: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I don’t see how anyone can be convicted of ‘denying the Holocaust’ on this law.

NB, Article 6 of the London Charter defined the crimes on which basis the Nuremberg trials were to be held:
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/v ... 3ae6b39614
but does not suggest that anyone is guilty of those crimes.


France's Gayssot act should have said that it's an offense to contest the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945 and of which the defeated Germans were already regarded as guilty at that time, before the Nuremberg show trials had even begun. The Gayssot act implies, very correctly but undeliberately, that the Nuremberg 'trials' and their sentences didn't really matter and were just a way to formalize the foregone conclusions of the winners. Just a high-grade lynching party (as US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote) of vengeful 'civilized' executioners...

At least, Iona Nikitchenko was frank about the real nature of the Nuremberg parody of justice, unlike the Western democracies that wanted to make it look like real 'trials'...

"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments.... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime." - Major-General Iona Timofeevich Nikitchenko, one of the three main drafters of the London Charter, Soviet Union's judge at the Nuremberg 'trials', BEFORE the Nuremberg 'Tribunal' convened.

"If [...] the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays." - Iona Nikitchenko, in the lead-up to the 'trials'.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby astro3 » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:31 pm)

We can all agree with Hermod that
France's Gayssot act should have said that it's an offense to contest the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945 and of which the defeated Germans were already regarded as guilty at that time, before the Nuremberg show trials had even begun.

Maybe, that’s what it intended to say.

Then Hermod says
The Gayssot act implies, very correctly but undeliberately, that the Nuremberg 'trials' and their sentences didn't really matter and were just a way to formalize the foregone conclusions of the winners.

That may or may not have been in the minds of those who wrote the act. Probably was. But, it is not stated in the Act.

Law is about what is written down.

The Act does not allude to any outcome or conclusions of the Nuremberg trials - eg that all the world has to believe in lethal cyanide gas chambers or that six million Jews were murdered etc.

Nope, its just not there.

The great Judgements of Nuremberg happened over 1946-1950.

The Gayssot Act only alludes to the preliminary definitions of law established in 1945.

I fully endorse the new categories of crime alluded to by the Gayssot Act - and want to see some British Prime ministers prosecuted using them.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3722
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby Hektor » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:03 pm)

They were making the setting of a questionable trial the basis for questionable legislation. Hence they made themselves a target.

What they sold the world as fact in Nuremberg:
https://archive.org/details/ThomasDoddC ... rgTrialIMT

What the attittude was (A redone version of this (Hilter Lives!) won a price in 1946 )
https://archive.org/details/YourJobInGe ... agandaFilm

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:25 pm)

We should work from the actual text rather than from Astro3's paraphrase
Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l’article 24 ceux qui auront contesté, par un des moyens énoncés à l’article 23, l’existence d’un ou plusieurs crimes contre l’humanité tels qu’ils sont définis par l’article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l’accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d’une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l’article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction française ou internationale.

Shall be punished under the the penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 any who shall have disputed by one of the means set forth in Article 23 [of an 1881 act on freedom of the press -Kingfisher], the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and have been committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the said Charter, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.
The law therefore forbids disputing the decision of any French or international court where these specific crimes are concerned.

The SS would fall under Article 9 of the statute and this is where the gaping anomaly in the Law appears. A person does not need to have been convicted of anything if he was a member of the SS, but if he has not been convicted on what grounds is he presumed to have committed the crime that you may not dispute?

It seems to be implied, but no more, that decisions of the IMT are covered, in anticipation, by the Charter.

I think you would be on weak grounds challenging the legality of Gayssot on these grounds, especially given the forces you would be up against. You would be on stronger grounds challenging its constitutionality, which, I think Faurisson has said he wants to do. The Constitutional Court rejected the attempt to outlaw questioning the Armenian genocide in 2012, and it is hard to see how this can be reconciled with the Gayssot Law.

But who expects consistency in such matters?

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:09 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:We should work from the actual text rather than from Astro3's paraphrase
Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l’article 24 ceux qui auront contesté, par un des moyens énoncés à l’article 23, l’existence d’un ou plusieurs crimes contre l’humanité tels qu’ils sont définis par l’article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l’accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d’une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l’article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction française ou internationale.

Shall be punished under the the penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 any who shall have disputed by one of the means set forth in Article 23 [of an 1881 act on freedom of the press -Kingfisher], the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and have been committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the said Charter, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.
The law therefore forbids disputing the decision of any French or international court where these specific crimes are concerned.


Not the decision of any French or international court. In France, it's illegal to deny the genocides officially recognized as such by the French parliament. To this day, the French parliament has officially recognized 2 genocides only: the "Holocaust" and the Armenian genocide. Before 2012, it was still legal to deny the Armenian genocide (http://rt.com/news/french-parliament-ar ... ocide-519/ - http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2012/0 ... doptee.php). And all the other genocides can still be denied in France so far.

Thus the Gayssot act is really against "Holocaust denial", and "Holocaust denial" only.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:45 pm)

Hermod:
In practice you are right that "Holocaust denial" is specifically targeted, but jurisdiction means court, not legislature.

The Constitutional Court overturned the Armenian genocide law, so we are left with only WW2 crimes.

There was a lot of opposition to the Gayssot law at the time,even from Chirac, who did nothing to reverse it when in power. It's become very difficult to shift despite opposition even from Holocaust Industry promoters like Veill and Badinter. Elizabeth Levy too.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:37 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:Hermod:
In practice you are right that "Holocaust denial" is specifically targeted, but jurisdiction means court, not legislature.

The Constitutional Court overturned the Armenian genocide law, so we are left with only WW2 crimes.


I had forgotten that the Constitutional Court overturned the Armenian genocide law. Thanks for reminding me that.

The category "WW2 crimes" seems even too wide. If memory serves me right, they had to find tricks to sue Reynouard when he revised the orthodox historiography of Oradour. And Denis Peschanski was not worried by justice when he wrote "there was no systematical extermination of gypsies" and explained that most gypsies deported to Auschwitz died of typhus and tuberculosis in his book "La France des Camps". The Gayssot act seems limited to the "Holocaust" of Jews.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

ivam
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:08 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby ivam » 6 years 9 months ago (Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:13 am)

found it again

http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/up ... _Vol.I.pdf

Human rights comittee 102, page 257 of this pdf document

"49. Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible
with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect
for freedom of opinion and expression.The Covenant does not permit general prohibition
of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events.
Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to
freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or
required under article 20. "

With this as the latest ruling from the human rights council, any law that prohibits free speech about the holocaust is definitely a violation to human rights. Which iam sure is a "win" button in any legal battle for holocaust denial.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:31 am)

ivam wrote:found it again

http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/up ... _Vol.I.pdf

Human rights comittee 102, page 257 of this pdf document

"49. Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible
with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect
for freedom of opinion and expression
.The Covenant does not permit general prohibition
of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events.
Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to
freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or
required under article 20. "

With this as the latest ruling from the human rights council, any law that prohibits free speech about the holocaust is definitely a violation to human rights. Which iam sure is a "win" button in any legal battle for holocaust denial.


According to the 1948 Human rights, "Holocaust denial" is not "the expression of opinions about historical facts". To the drafters and promoters of Human rights, "Holocaust denial" is a falsification of historical facts, not historical research, and "Holocaust deniers" are not historians but falsifiers of History.

Article 30 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) (or 17 depending on the version you use) states:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


To the courts of Human rights' eyes, "Holocaust denial" is a rehabilitation of Nazism leading to the destruction of Human rights. So "Holocaust denial" is not freedom of speech. "Holocaust denial" is racism and antisemitism (still according to the courts of Human rights), 2 things that are not part of Human rights and freedom of speech. "Holocaust denial" is even "one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews" according to the European Court of Human Rights. The "Holocaust" is the founding myth of modern (i.e. post-WW2) democracies and their moral values. So "Holocaust denial" is not an opinion that can be expressed accordingly to any freedom of speech, but a moral crime, a very serious offense that should be punished very hard in all modern democracies.

This was very clearly explained by the European Court of Human Rights to Mr Roger Garaudy about his book "The Founding Myths of Modern Israel"...

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

7.7.2003

INADMISSIBILITY DECISION
IN THE CASE OF GARAUDY v. FRANCE


With regard to Mr Garaudy’s convictions for disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, the Court referred to Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights), which was intended to prevent people from inferring from the Convention any right to engage in activities or perform acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Thus, no one could rely on the Convention as a basis for engaging in any act that was contrary to its provisions. Having analysed the book concerned, the Court found that, as the domestic courts had shown, the applicant had adopted revisionist theories and systematically disputed the existence of the crimes against humanity which the Nazis had committed against the Jewish community. There could be no doubt that disputing the existence of clearly established historical events, such as the Holocaust, did not constitute historical research akin to a quest for the truth. The real purpose of such a work was to rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime and, as a consequence, to accuse the victims of the Holocaust of falsifying history. Disputing the existence of crimes against humanity was, therefore, one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews. The denial or rewriting of this type of historical fact undermined the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism was based and constituted a serious threat to public order. It was incompatible with democracy and human rights and its proponents indisputably had designs that fell into the category of prohibited aims under Article 17 of the Convention. The Court found that, since the applicant’s book, taken as a whole, displayed a marked tendency to revisionism, it ran counter to the fundamental values of the Convention, namely justice and peace. The applicant had sought to deflect Article 10 of the Convention from its intended purpose by using his right to freedom of expression to fulfil ends that were contrary to the Convention. Consequently, the Court held that he could not rely on Article 10 and declared his complaint incompatible with the Convention.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-pre ... 39-805233#{"itemid":["003-788339-805233"]}


The "Holocaust" taught us how to be good human beings at last. :roll:

Only a matter of time before the United States of America join the ranks of modern democracies and make "Holocaust denial" a hate crime punished by law...

"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

ivam
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:08 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby ivam » 6 years 9 months ago (Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:00 pm)

Yes but iam talking about the latest human rights congress which specificaly adresses these previous issues. The ruling from 2011 protects opinions about historical events.

this was not specifically said in the previous congresses, now that its been said that you can dispute ANY historical event, technically you can refer back to the 2011 ruling while before there was no specific paragraph that would protect this direct expression of freedom of speech.

at least thats how i perceive it. Might be useful to ask somehow who is more literate in law about this.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:40 am)

There could be no doubt that disputing the existence of clearly established historical events, such as the Holocaust, did not constitute historical research akin to a quest for the truth. The real purpose of such a work was to rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime and, as a consequence, to accuse the victims of the Holocaust of falsifying history. Disputing the existence of crimes against humanity was, therefore, one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews. The denial or rewriting of this type of historical fact undermined the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism was based and constituted a serious threat to public order. It was incompatible with democracy and human rights and its proponents indisputably had designs that fell into the category of prohibited aims under Article 17 of the Convention. The Court found that, since the applicant’s book, taken as a whole, displayed a marked tendency to revisionism, it ran counter to the fundamental values of the Convention, namely justice and peace.


That's a long-winded way of saying that anything which "display[s] a marked tendency to revisionism" [undefined] is illegal, full stop. The entire text is a classic case of begging the question (assuming the conclusion in the premise). Anyone who questions any aspect of accepted history can be said to accuse others of "falsifying history". It's an accusation the Establishment constantly throws at revisionism, however. No evidence is provided that it is "one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews". (an implicit assumption appears to be that any criticism of Jews is forbidden). Obviously, any successful attempt to question or mitigate the traditional narrative of the Nazis as consummate evil will automatically, at least partially " rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime". Nowhere is it demonstrated that revisionism is automatically motivated by racial hatred. If Garaudy really was to be charged with racial hatred the issue had be addressed directly, but as we have seen time and again across Europe the two will be unjustifiably conflated

The entire statement of opinion is introduced with "There could be no doubt that...". It makes no more sense than the famous declaration of the French historians. Any half-qualified solicitor's clerk could tear it apart, but it doesn't matter, because this is the highest legal authority and "What we say goes".

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter how strongly a legal text supports your right to express a view; what matters is not the text but the court ruling. If the powers-that-be have decided against you, they will rule against you and produce fatuous verbiage on a par with the above.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:24 am)

ivam wrote:Yes but iam talking about the latest human rights congress which specificaly adresses these previous issues. The ruling from 2011 protects opinions about historical events.

this was not specifically said in the previous congresses, now that its been said that you can dispute ANY historical event, technically you can refer back to the 2011 ruling while before there was no specific paragraph that would protect this direct expression of freedom of speech.

at least thats how i perceive it. Might be useful to ask somehow who is more literate in law about this.


I highly doubt that the guys of a human rights congress had "Holocaust denial" in their mind when they dealt with opinions about historical events and free speech. The 1948 declaration of human rights was entirely based on the lies told about Nazi Germany at that time - mainly the "Holocaust" - and that was openly stated when this declaration was being drafted. It's not exaggerated to say: no Holocaust, no 1948 declaration of Human rights. (So can it be also said "No holes, no Universal Declaration of Human Rights"? :wink: )

And I don't think that talkings during a human rights congress have more judicial weight that the article 17 of the 1948 declaration of human rights.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: French Gayssot Act

Postby hermod » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:09 am)

Kingfisher wrote:
That's a long-winded way of saying that anything which "display[s] a marked tendency to revisionism" [undefined] is illegal, full stop. The entire text is a classic case of begging the question (assuming the conclusion in the premiss). Anyone who questions any aspect of accepted history can be said to accuse others of "falsifying history". It's an accusation the Establishment constantly throws at revisionism, however. No evidence is provided that it is "one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews". (an implicit assumption appears to be that any criticism of Jews is forbidden). Obviously, any successful attempt to question or mitigate the traditional narrative of the Nazis as consummate evil will automatically, at least partially " rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime". Nowhere is it demonstrated that revisionism is automatically motivated by racial hatred. If Garaudy really was to be charged with racial hatred the issue had be addressed directly, but as we have seen time and again across Europe the two will be unjustifiably conflated


That's like saying that Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei were motivated by atheism and a deep hatred of Christian faith, with no evidence to support that, when they were in fact both devout believers in God who just wanted to understand God's creation and the divine laws governing universe and life.

Anyway, most people now believe that antisemitism is not an opinion but an infamous crime because of the "Holocaust" (Never again, etc.), but the future worldwide criminalization of antisemitism had been proclaimed as the fundamental principle of a new world order before the alleged mass murder of Europe's Jews by Hitler had even begun.

Image
http://theendofzion.com/wp-content/uplo ... tojews.jpg
The New York Times, October 6, 1940.


The entire statement of opinion is introduced with "There could be no doubt that...". It makes no more sense than the famous declaration of the French historians. Any half-qualified solicitor's clerk could tear it apart, but it doesn't matter, because this is the highest legal authority and "What we say goes".


There can be no doubt that...the earth is flat and located at the center of the universe. Otherwise, the houses and trees would be toppled by the high speed of the earth traveling in the universe and rotating on itself. And the creatures living at the bottom part of the earth would fall. :twisted:


What I am saying is that it doesn't matter how strongly a legal text supports your right to express a view; what matters is not the text but the court ruling. If the powers-that-be have decided against you, they will rule against you and produce fatuous verbiage on a par with the above.


I agree 100%.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 10 guests