Rog Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ust-denial.html As much as his views are awful what is worse is having him face fines and possibly imprisonment for just saying what he thinks. Let's put aside the fact he has broken German law. Let's even put aside that the UK should have a similar law, but it does not. This is far more than a matter of free speech, even if the man is totally wrong and gibbering on about things like the reality of Chemtrails he should be allowed to say what he wants --- but there’s a but. It’s a ‘but’ that I suspect will not be understood by many, and it revolves around perceptions. There are people in the world, especially in the Middle East who believe that if a government allows someone to publicly state something quite outrageous there must be a truth in it or the government of the country in which the man lives would shut him up. It happens in their world and so it must be the same or at least similar elsewhere. Take the infamous ‘Principles of the Elders of Zion’. A bigger load of codswallop would be hard to find and their validity has been utterly disproved to the nth. Degree, the origin has even been identified and yet --- And yet there are still those even in THIS country who believe them to be true. In many Middle Eastern countries it is taken as being gospel. Then look at the nonsense about 9/11 being in some way an inside job. Goodness knows there’s a couple of numpties on this forum who support that insane claim. So what is at issue is not the suppression of free speech, it is the necessary suppression of the dissemination of downright lies that in other places will form part of a devils brew and as time progresses even in the UK many people don’t understand what took place during the Shoa let alone believe what they hear when they get told. Free speech is one thing, even when it is based on a load of bollocks, but when it IS based on a load of bollocks but is being believed as being true and stoking a fire elsewhere it ceases to be free speech and becomes incitement to hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 is he on drugs, its like saying the 9-11 bomebings diden take place, ah well it takes all walks of life Didn't know there was any bombings, thought it was hyjacking and crashing planes, also would like to point out it is 11-9 here we aint yanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this Rog. If people choose to read what is out there about the slaughter of these people and come to their own conclusion then who am I, who are you, and certainly who is the State to tell them they will be punished for uttering it. If such a person leads others down the road to believing that the Holocaust was less severe than it was or believe it didn't happen then that is society's fault or the academics/intellectuals (across the world's) fault. It is about freedom of speech. The issue may be connected to racism (probably is) or foolish belief in conspiracy theories, etc. But it is a free speech issue and you either support it or you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You ignore the fact that this moron holds office in the Catholic Church. It must then follow that anyone stupid enough to believe in that particular variation of the invisible friend fairy tale will accord the idiots views on the Holocaust far more credence than any one with half a brain normally would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 So what? Fools and the vulnerable can believe what they want to believe. If they are so servile to take the word of some priest as 'gospel' then an ignorant view of the world is what they get. I'd rather see free speech upheld than worry about the possibility that impressionable people might believe lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this Rog. If people choose to read what is out there about the slaughter of these people and come to their own conclusion then who am I, who are you, and certainly who is the State to tell them they will be punished for uttering it. The problem arises when the implications of the statements being allowed to be made are seen as authenticating their truth. If such a person leads others down the road to believing that the Holocaust was less severe than it was or believe it didn't happen then that is society's fault or the academics/intellectuals (across the world's) fault. The problem comes with differences in societies. What is perfectly acceptable in some societies is abhorrent in others. It is acceptable in our society to write something along the lines of Alan Bell couldn’t find his backside even with the aid of a bright light, a mirror, and a directions, or Tony Brown is a pillock of the first water who has to run a hardware shop because he hasn’t got the brains to run a whelk stall. Yet to even hint in Iran that the president couldn’t be a SOB because no self respecting dog in the gutter would mate with whatever his father was would ensure a rapid transfer from This Mortal Coil. It is about freedom of speech. The issue may be connected to racism (probably is) or foolish belief in conspiracy theories, etc. But it is a free speech issue and you either support it or you don't. No, it’s about the interpretation put on the presence of some material by others with different values that is a vital component in this matter. It is subject to the crying fire in a crowded theatre factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 The problem arises when the implications of the statements being allowed to be made are seen as authenticating their truth.Can you explain what you mean please? The problem comes with differences in societies. What is perfectly acceptable in some societies is abhorrent in others.There are lots of reasons why such things are abhorrent. However, I accept it as a matter of common sense that people wish to have control over themselves as opposed to being controlled by others. We are conditioned to be subservient yet in so many aspects of our lives and in expression of our desires it is freedom we would. It seems apparent also that particular freedoms are ok for some and not others in other cultures based on little more than the need for control and power over others. No, it’s about the interpretation put on the presence of some material by others with different values that is a vital component in this matter. It is subject to the crying fire in a crowded theatre factor.And what are those values in this case? What really is the worry? It shouldn't override people's ability to say what they think. I could shout fire in my workplace now, people would maybe worry, look at me and around the office. It wouldn't take long to realise I was talking bullshit and I would then suffer the consequences by social exclusion. I don't really buy the 'fire in the theatre' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 So what? Fools and the vulnerable can believe what they want to believe. If they are so servile to take the word of some priest as 'gospel' then an ignorant view of the world is what they get. I'd rather see free speech upheld than worry about the possibility that impressionable people might believe lies. The casualty is the truth. That should concern you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Gotta wonder about a person who offers disbelief to the extent of the concentration camps but will believe transubstansiation and virgin births, mans a fool and should be ignored, but god forbid we should start jailing people for being fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 If this kind of statement had been made by someone like Nick Griffin, most reasonable people would be able to dismiss as the rantings of an anti-semitic neo nazi. When its made by a bishop of the RC church, many of the 'faithful' will see it as something to confirm their own innate anti-semitism. After all, a bishop is 'a high-ranking Christian cleric, in modern churches usually in charge of a diocese and in some churches regarded as having received the highest ordination in unbroken succession from the apostles.' [dictionary definition] The man is deranged, but dangerous and the church should move swiftly, not only to distance itself from his repulsive views but to excommunicate him. As far as his conviction is concerned; he has, quite simply, knowingly broken the law of the country that he was in and should suffer the consequences in the same way that any other person would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 not only to distance itself from his repulsive views but to excommunicate him. well if we are going to give him imaginary punishments, could we give him a monopoly money fine as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 The casualty is the truth.That should concern you. It does. But I place a much much higher value on freedom. The problem for me is that making sure that everyone knows the truth or that this truth is not threatened is not good enough reason for there to exist an authority that would silence people whose views it does not agree with. Terse: As far as his conviction is concerned; he has, quite simply, knowingly broken the law of the country that he was in and should suffer the consequences in the same way that any other person would.Well the issue is really whether such a law should exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Well the issue is really whether such a law should exist. No it isn't. It's a very sensible one. You of all people should be against inciting bigotry, hatred and violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 How is it sensible? I don't see much sense in gagging people at all, none whatsoever when nobody should have use their power to do so. And why me of all people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 And why me of all people? Well for your form of collective anarchy to work - surely we have to get on with each and work together in a form of outdated and plainly unworkable socialist utopia. That could never work if there are dissenting voices or our many gods help us - some one came up with an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.