Freedom of speech is a minefield, on the one hand people should be alowed to say what they want, on the other we should be free not only from being insulted (badly that is, if you cant put up with a little criticism there's something terribly, almost narcisistically, wrong with you) but also from being told blatant lies. In other words, it would be nice if we could just simply tell people to shut up when they spout anti-semitic or Holocaust denying rubbish, but how can we maintain moral and ethical consistancy with this?

It's impossible (not to mention not my place) for me to answer that, but frankly, I'd like to think most Muslims could take some criticism of their religion, as all religions ought to (but dont always). And, when we get right down to it, the cartoons were just that: cartoons, and not very funny ones at that, only the racist readers of the tabloid rag that first printed them would really take them seriously.

But as for anti-semitism, whilst so-called 'Islamophobia' is becoming disgustingly widespread, anti-semitism is also experiencing a resurgence, including amongst so-called 'radicals' and self proclaimed 'anti-fascists'. And yes, some of them are here, a fact I regret, but must accept. Now, if they wish to engage in reasoned debate, fine, the evidence is on our side, but when they spout ill-informed opinion, then is the time we must (with regret) censor them, by hiding the information (but not deleting it).

HOWEVER, in a recently hidden thread (because it was itself nonsense) someone denied the holocaust with nothing but coincidence (people give money to Israel, as if that were evidence that there was no Holocause) and some maths dodier that that used by Bush's economists when working out their economy (he didnt even give figures, just "subtract that number").
IF WE ARE TO BE ETHICALLY AND JOURNALISTICALLY CONSISTANT we ought to hide comments such as these, and if the poster whishes to repost, they ought to have more evidence.
Afterall, rational and empirical evidence is the only way to make democratic decisions, and this site is all about democracy, those who wish to misinform ought to have their racist/fascist/unevidenced comments hidden - the EDITORIAL GUIDLINES themselves say so.
The above mentioned comment was never hidden, and still isnt, even though the posting (in itself not explicitly denying the holocause) was. Is this the way we discorage those who misinform and who spread opinions as fact?

In the name of truth, lets bring back the journalism to Citizens' Journalism. When debate is rational and truthful, we can build a proper democracy.

(P.S., i have not linked to the mentioned hidden article - I am uncertain of the guidelines governing linking to hidden material. It was an Open Letter to the BBC, if anyone is terribly interested)

between the cartoons and Holocaust denial.

The cartoons are comments - offensive if you like, but none the less comments - on people's beliefs. These beliefs, like all religious beliefs, are unverifiable. They are matters of faith rather than fact.

The Holocaust is a reality from the past. Can you imagine the German reaction if we said that well, perhaps only a few hundred died in Dresden? Or the Russians - Stalingrad? Can you prove all those people died there? Got birth and death certificates have you?

The incessant mention of the Holocaust by the Iranian president, and its resonances on Indymedia, gives one quite some sympathy for the Jews in Israel.

AMEN BROTHER!

In my rather rambling rant I neglected such a simple fact, boy to i feel foolish.

Once again, simplicity and rational argument win over verbal meandering.

Especially at a time when newspapers in Iran are running a competition for who can cause the greatest discredit to the holocaust, the Protocols are being sold in UK Islamic bookstores and left radicals are again scapegoating the Jews.

Of course, i am againt racism, but there are emberassing facts about the prophet of Islam. It is a fact, agreed upon by Sunni, Shia and other denominations of Islam, also by Western scholars, that Mohammed had many wives, and one of the was nine when he married her and the marraige was consumated. These are facts, go read any biography of the prophet if you do not believe me. But, I wonder, can we say this?

Hatred Is Not A Right

There is still the annoying thing left unaccounted for, unsaid mostly and definately not accepted for the status [it] deserves, namely the facts of the matter - regardng the many many inconsistancies and downright lies told about the holocaust (which even taken at face value, represent but a small percentage of the human wastage of a world war that saw nations destroyed remade and reborn - and a lot of finaciers/corporations get super rich).

Even tentatively offering up this for discussion is illegal in lots of places - how can liberals, lefties, info anarchist and the like allow this state of affairs to persist unchallanged?

How can one accept a mandate in law for 'historical truth'?

Why does the word revisionism provoke such hysteria?

Why can we discuss the ethnic/religious status of perpetrator and victim in the case of SOME of the camps inmates, but be shouted down as a nazi for recognising that the red terror that killed 10 times more people in the same period had similar ethnic/religious fractures?

Some of my relatives and friends shrink at mere asking of these questions, some address them openly and honestly. The strange thing to me is that the majority of them that shrink are for the most part agnostic about their jewish-ness - or at least very lax! - and those that face the questions head on are those amoung them that retain in the full their jewish customs and habits.

My grandmothers sister (who has never left england) cannot bare for even the word nazi to be mentioned in her house, yet my mothers brother (whom she discribes as the 'best rabbi our family ever had' and comes from the branch of the family that lost horribly in the war) has a bookcase in his house full of so called 'revisionist' literature and will discuss the matter openly and without breaking into a sweat.

People are strange.

PS. I am not the 'jewish and proud/J&P' that posts here so regularly and offensively, I am 'jewish and not particularly proud' OK!

I don't think 'holocaust denial' or whatever else you want to call it should be a crime. Not should publishing cartoons.Say what you want. But there is something of a difference between a cartoon and denying the genocide of six million people.

... the 'evidence' is full of holes.
1. Why didn't the Germans just shoot the Jews? Why build huge concentration camps, then (allegedly) put 100s of Jews into a gas chamber, gas them, then have to physically carry out the bodies and then physically cremate them? Why not just dig pits, get them to stand on the edge, and shoot them in the back of the head? (I've seen awful footage of this being done in the 2nd World War, I presume it was Jews being murdered like this, so it's not as if it was never done).
2. How were the bodies cremated? Do you know how much coke or gas is needed to burn just one body, let alone six million? How were the bones crushed into powder? (Bones don't burn adequately in cremation and have to be crushed...) There was no machinery for doing this in any of the concentration camps.
3. How was the gas extracted from the chambers rapidly so that German soldiers could go in and remove the bodies safely? There were no fans to extract the gas, which is highly toxic indeed, and merely opening a couple of doors would have meant it would take six or seven hours for sufficient air to have gone through the chamber to remove all traces, especially from the bodies.


The mere fact that several famous historians are now in prison for merely QUESTIONING the 'holycause' proves, at least to me, that the whole thing is a big lie. Nobody is suggesting that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in the war, but not as a policy of mass extermination. If there was a policy of mass extermination, again I ask: why didn't the Germans just shoot them? Why waste precious resources on a group of people you were intending to murder, by building camps and clothing and feeding them for years?

Do you know that any Jew that LEFT Germany during the 2nd World War is officially a 'holocaust survivor'? Maybe that explains why there seem to be so many 'survivors', who allegedly 'survived' a concentration camp, or even the amazing ones who have been in SEVERAL 'concentration camps', without being murdered!

Why would the Germans waste huge amounts of money keeping Jews alive in camps, if they wanted to kill them?

Read up about cremation and how long it takes for one body to burn. Then count how many ovens there were. Then calculate whether it was at all possible.

What if it was not? What will you say then?

I just loved this bit:
"It's impossible (not to mention not my place) for me to answer that, but frankly, I'd like to think most Muslims could take some criticism of their religion, as all religions ought to (but dont always). And, when we get right down to it, the cartoons were just that: cartoons, and not very funny ones at that, only the racist readers of the tabloid rag that first printed them would really take them seriously."

Well, most muslims can't take ANY criticism of their 'religion', precisely because it's such an awful 'religion'. Just compare the life of Mu-ham-mad to that of Jesus - they couldn't be more diametrically opposed to each other if they tried. One was a mass murderer, the other was murdered by psychopathic Jews, merely for SAYING something they didn't like...

Sounds like history is repeating itself...

You say "Only the 'racist' readers of the tabloid 'rag' that first printed them would really take them seriously"... My god! What planet are you on? It's only the mad muslims who have 'taken them seriously' you fool! How many Christians did the muslims in Nigeria MURDER yesterday during a 'protest'? The BBC worded it very nicely, Big Brother would be proud: "Nigeria cartoon protests kill 16"... So the 'protests' 'killed' 16 people? No, MUSLIMS murdered 16 CHRISTIANS in Nigeria, because they were CHRISTIANS...

It must be that 'religion of 'peace'' again...

"But as for anti-semitism, whilst so-called 'Islamophobia' is becoming disgustingly widespread, anti-semitism is also experiencing a resurgence, including amongst so-called 'radicals' and self proclaimed 'anti-fascists'. And yes, some of them are here, a fact I regret, but must accept. Now, if they wish to engage in reasoned debate, fine, the evidence is on our side, but when they spout ill-informed opinion, then is the time we must (with regret) censor them, by hiding the information (but not deleting it)."

So which genius gets to decide when the 'evil ones' (who dare to disagree with you) are 'engaging in reasoned debate' and when they are 'spouting ill-informed opinion'? And why shouldn't anybody be able to 'spout ill-informed opinion' if they want to? So you must 'censor them' by 'hiding information' (but not deleting it)...

Hmmm... So you aren't actually 'censoring' them then... Just 'hiding the information'....

What could you possibly have to hide?
You are typical of most lefties - you can't even debate your own viewpoint, and you have to resort to silencing any critic or opposition, who can produce MOUNDS of evidence to support their point of view...