Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

Why you see swastikas in America but not Germany – Vox

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed horror at the racist marches that roiled Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. It is racist, far-right violence, and clear, forceful action must be taken against it, regardless of where in the world it happens, she said on German television Monday.

She might have added that such a thing wouldnt have happened in todays Germany because its illegal.

While America protects the right of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups to hold public rallies and express their views openly, Germany has strict laws banning Nazi symbols and whats called Volksverhetzung incitement of the people, or hate speech. Like more than a dozen European countries, Germany also has a law criminalizing Holocaust denial.

And while Confederate statues can be found in many American cities south of the Mason-Dixon Line, there are no statues of Adolph Hitler or Joseph Goebbels gracing public squares in Berlin, let alone Nazi flags or other Nazi art. Public Nazi imagery was long ago destroyed, and swastikas were long since knocked off the walls of Nazi-era buildings. The only Nazi imagery youll find is in exhibits devoted to understanding the horror of the period.

The former Gestapo headquarters complex was destroyed in the 1950s. The land it once stood on now houses the Topography of Terror, a memorial and museum made of glass and steel filled with panels that narrate the brutal history of the Nazi regime. And on streets across the country, there are small brass cobblestones called stolpersteine (literally stumbling blocks), which tell passersby brief biographical details of each man, woman, or child who was deported from that spot, that house, or that block.

The Civil War may have ended more than 150 years ago, but America is still dealing with how to reconcile, and memorialize, that dark period of its history. And while freedom of speech even vile, racist speech is an inviolate part of the US Constitutions First Amendment, Germanys commitment to facing its own dark past led that country to believe a mix of education and limiting free speech was the only way to ensure the past would remain past.

In 1945, the conquering Allied powers took control of Germany and banned the swastika, the Nazi party, and the publication of Mein Kampf, Hitlers famously anti-Semitic text, historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus explained to me.

There was a thorough effort to get rid of Nazi stragglers and Lost Cause supporters, adds historian Gavriel Rosenfeld.

In 1949, the new West German government legally codified the banning of Nazi symbols and language, as well as propaganda. As Middlebury College professor Erik Bleich explained in a 2011 article for the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies on the development of hate speech and hate crimes laws, even the Heil Hitler! salute was officially banned.

But that didnt mean it all disappeared overnight. After all, millions of German who had been part of the Nazi party still lived in the country. SS veterans who had fought under an ideology that was now outlawed would meet to drink and reminisce. There was always the risk, it seemed, of backsliding, even as a new menace communism rose in the east.

It wasnt until the generation that came of age in the 1960s the baby boomers who became known in Europe as 68ers that a full reckoning of the war and a culture of Holocaust education began to take hold. Students rose up against the suppression of memory, demanding answers to what their parents had done just 25 years earlier.

A generation of criminals was ruling society after the war and no one talked about what they had done, journalist Gnter Wallraff told Deutsche Welle in 2008. Discussing their crimes was not even a part of our school lessons.

Today its mandatory in schools.

The law was also evolving. After a series of synagogues and cemeteries were vandalized, Bleich explains, the West German parliament voted unanimously in 1960 to make it illegal to incite hatred, to provoke violence, or to insult, ridicule or defame parts of the population in a manner apt to breach the peace. Over time it was broadened to include racist writing.

Gradually, this evolved into a concept called defensive democracy. The idea is that democracies might need a boost from some illiberal policies such as limits on free speech and the display of imagery, in this case, connected to the Holocaust and the Second World War in order to keep everyone free. In 2009 the law was strengthened again, when the German Constitutional Court officially ruled that a march to celebrate Nazi Rudolf Hess was illegal under Article 130 of the Penal Code, which bans anything that “approves of, glorifies or justifies the violent and despotic rule of the National Socialists.”

Our German law centers on the strong belief that you should hinder this kind of speech in a society committed to principles of democratic coexistence and peace, Matthias Jahn, a law professor at Goethe University in Frankfurt, told the Washington Post this week.

Germany still struggles with neo-Nazis and the far right. But even the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the far-right German party, ran into trouble earlier this year when one of its leaders seemed to minimize the Holocaust and bashed Germanys culture of remembrance. The party voted to remove him.

By contrast, in one of our countrys most notable free speech cases, neo-Nazis were famously allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois, in 1978. This was despite the fact that the choice was made to clearly hurt the large population of Holocaust survivors, and Jews, who lived there.

What Germany does is what Germany does, says University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone. They learned different lessons from history. The lesson we learned is not to trust the government to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not okay.

The First Amendment does not permit the government to forbid speech because ideas are thought to be offensive or odious. That’s a message we have learned over our history: that we don’t trust the government to make that decision.

If we had, he says, it likely would have been used against civil rights, womens rights, and LGBTQ rights.

Earlier this year, Condoleezza Rice who was the first woman African-American secretary of state in US history was asked on Fox News if she wanted the South to erase the past by taking down the monuments to Confederate leaders.

I am a firm believer in ‘keep your history before you, she told the hosts. So I don’t actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners. I want us to have to look at those names, and realize what they did, and be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of their own history.

But unlike in Germany, where memorials to the victims of the Holocaust are erected on the ruins of Nazi buildings as a way to teach future generations about the sins and horrors of the past, most Confederate statues were designed to glorify the sins and horrors of the past.

Professor Kirt von Daacke, co-chair of the University of Virginia President’s Commission on Slavery and the University, explains that the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was erected in 1924 as part of the apex of white supremacist rule in Virginia and the US. It was explicitly part of a project designed to claim public space for whites only and remind African Americans that they were the dominated whose lives were worthless.

Both the statue of Robert E. Lee and a nearby statue of Stonewall Jackson, he continues, were installed just after the KKK marched directly into the heart of the African-American community.

These statues, he says, were the final act in a 30-plus-year project in Virginia … eliminating African Americans from citizenship and the public sphere and erasing the history of the Civil War. He sees both of them as part of a Lost Cause mythology that itself was a whitewashing of history.

To call these statues historical is to be willfully ignorant of history, he adds. The statues are monuments to white supremacy, not to Lee, not to Jackson.

That said, not everyone agrees that the obvious answer is immediate removal.

Alfred Brophy, a law professor at the University of Alabama, wrote me he believes its generally not the right idea to remove a statue because we should not allow our country to forget that there was once a time when the people in power celebrated the Confederacy and its support of slavery.

Whitewashing took place, he explains, when the history of the South was rewritten to be about states rights rather than slavery. I think there’s a ton of validity to the argument that removal of statues facilitates forgetting, he said. Once the public space is cleared of Confederate statues, it’s easy to forget that Confederate statues once blanketed the countryside. They serve as stark reminders of the bad old days.

He worries, though, that there is a good argument for removing them after Charlottesville. When a monument serves as a contemporary rallying point, then we need to remove them, I suspect.

Read more:
Why you see swastikas in America but not Germany – Vox

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Censor white supremacy – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

One of the most welcome political developments of my lifetime is the growing suspicion with which attempts to cloak even the most detestable utterances under the mantle of “free speech” is regarded.

From the misogynistic obscurantism of #GamerGate (years later I still can’t find anyone who can tell me what the “-gate” was) and the painfully unfunny parody of stand-up comedy performed on college campuses by the expatriate employer of ghostwriters known as Milo Yiannopoulos to the latter-day phrenology of the so-called alt-right and the unabashed Holocaust denial of Stormfront, there are expressions that most of us consider on their face unacceptable and undeserving of a platform. The difference is that now increasingly it looks as if people have concluded that it is our duty to make sure they are denied one. Thank God for SJWs!

This was not always the case. There is a long history in this country of making grandiose blanket defenses of freedom of speech that extend to bigots, frauds, pornographers, genocidal enthusiasts, propagators of terrorism and sedition, and kooks emotionally invested in nonsense and villainy of every conceivable variety. People who make arguments defending, say, the rights of pseudo-historians to argue that the Nazis did not murder millions of European Jews or the ancient liberty of perverts to create simulations of child pornography call themselves “free speech absolutists.” Their position has never been tenable, but it has long enjoyed a mainstream currency in the United States, in classrooms, and in the pages of newspapers and magazines and even on the bench of the Supreme Court.

This is because freedom of speech in the way that is usually discussed in this country is a cartoonish fantasy. There has never been a community in which certain ideas have not been considered open for discussion or debate. As Stanley Fish argued in his famous essay “There is no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too,” the liberal concept of freedom of speech is not some kind of immutable principle woven into the fabric of reality; it is an idea and a very new, albeit frequently misunderstood one.

As Fish points out, the ur-text for what we think of as freedom of expression, quoted on a monument familiar to those who visited the Rose Main Reading Room of the New York Public Library, is John Milton’s 1642 treatise Aeropagitica. There the Puritan poet and pamphleteer makes many arguments that will sound familiar to Americans in the 21st century: Allowing the largest possible number of viewpoints to be expressed publicly means that we have access to more good ideas; the task of sifting through a wide range of opinions sharpens our intellects and forces us to refine our own arguments; moreover, actively proscribing certain expressions may lend them a certain kind of romantic credibility, whereas simply ignoring them will result in their being mostly ignored.

What almost no one acknowledges, except in the act of attempting to explain it away, is the following qualification, which was absolutely crucial for Milton:

I mean not tolerated Popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpats all religions and civill supremacies, so it self should be extirpat, provided first that all charitable and compassionat means be us’d to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or maners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw it self. [Aeropagitica]

In other words, Milton argues, all free speech is acceptable except any speech that promotes the teachings of the Catholic Church or paganism or atheism. Brushing this off as mere prejudice or oversight would be a gross anachronism. Milton makes this qualification precisely because Catholicism and atheism are incompatible with the kind of society for which he is arguing. Giving Catholics or atheists a hearing would be an act of violence tearing away at the foundations of the Christian commonwealth he hoped to establish.

Very few Americans today are interested in setting up a community based on 17th-century Protestant notions of biblical morality. But Milton’s pamphlet remains relevant. All societies have certain organizing principles. Freedom of speech is not a first-order good; it exists only to facilitate the flourishing of the society along the lines established by those principles. In America today one of those principles is that discrimination based on race is immoral; people who disagree with this have only one goal creating a society in which it is not one of those principles. If we do not want to allow this to happen, we should not permit anyone to argue in favor of it.

To pretend otherwise and posture on behalf of the abstract rights of racist crank is not, as “absolutists” pretend, to defend speech but to demean it, to diminish it to the level of undifferentiated random noise. This is because every act of expression takes place against the invisible backdrop of all the expressions not taking place; an argument in the pages of The Washington Post about a murder assumes that murder is a crime, and it would not occur to the reporter that, when seeking comment from the police department and the suspect’s attorney, he should also solicit the opinions of a hypothetical man in Arkansas who thinks that murder should not be a crime. To fail to see how any given act of speech only makes sense in the absence of other possible but absolutely inadmissible expressions is childish. Assuming that a new scholarly biography of Hitler and Holocaust-denying memes traded by basement dwellers on the internet are both “speech,” expressions of potentially equal value whose worth is ultimate determined by what readers decide to make of them, is not an exercise in tolerance; it is nihilism.

Which brings us to the recent decisions by Go Daddy and Google to deny the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi publication, a home on their web hosting platforms. I have yet to see anyone find fault with this decision even though realistically speaking it amounts to censorship. This is in itself a good thing, though few people have acknowledged it as such. At present it is easy to ignore the elephant in the room by saying that these are private companies free to make their own decisions about what viewpoints can be expressed on web servers that they own and control. But there are only so many web hosting services. Suppose no one was willing to offer these Hitler fanboys room to air their grievances with African-Americans and Jews on the internet suppose that they could find no publisher willing to reproduce their pamphlets and no one willing to sell them a Xerox machine and paper to distribute them on their own?

Would it still be okay? Why is it reasonable to pretend that an action that is licit and even commendable when taken by a corporation that will soon be worth $1 trillion would be unjust if an ill-defined entity called “the state” undertook it? The world in which the government enjoys a monopoly on coercion and corporations are not state entities whose actions would not be possible without a vast infrastructure and legal apparatus in which they operate is a fantasy. The procedural question of who is responsible for the censorship is beside the point. The only relevant one is whether it is laudable.

I for one am happy that the Daily Stormer is gone. People who agree with me need to ask themselves why they would have found it upsetting if the Department of Justice had shut it down.

More here:
Censor white supremacy – The Week Magazine

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Death of a Holocaust denier: With Zundel’s passing, what can we take away? – Canadian Jewish News (blog)

Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, counsels the book of Proverbs.

That may have been a hard sell when news of Ernst Zundels death in Germany reached Canada earlier this month.

Zundel, whos been described as the worlds foremost purveyor of Holocaust denial literature, wrote titles such as, The Hitler We Loved and Why, and distributed hate literature, including Richard Harwoods 1974 booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.

Zundel delighted in his notoriety and needled the Jewish community with glee. From his infamous bunker in Torontos Cabbagetown neighbourhood, he continued to publish viciously anti-Semitic tracts and courted publicity relentlessly, even running for the federal Liberal leadership in 1968. In the days before the Internet, media exposure was his oxygen.

In time, serious debate arose in Jewish circles over whether legal action should be taken. Hardly anyone said Zundel shouldnt be punished. The issue was whether going public would provide him with the platform he craved and embolden his fellow neo-Nazis, and whether, in the long run, it would hurt the community. Was it better to let him and his dark ideas shrivel in the light of truth, or to try to bring the full extent of the law down upon him?

Numerous prominent voices, including civil libertarian Alan Borovoy and high-profile criminal lawyer Edward Greenspan, spoke out against prosecution.

In the end, Zundel faced two trials that resulted in convictions and an ultimate acquittal when the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly struck down the false news section of the Criminal Code, under which he was charged. It was his native Germany that finally jailed him for inciting racial hatred.

READ: WHITE SUPREMACY SEXUALIZED: THE YOUNG, FEMALE FACES OF HATE

But those who recall the Toronto trials, in 1985 and 1988, will also remember the blaring newspaper headlines of swimming pools at Auschwitz and no evidence of gas chambers. That hurt many in the Jewish community and seemed to vindicate those who had warned against using open courts.

With Zundels demise comes questions that have had the benefit of 30 years consideration:

Was it, in the end, a good idea to prosecute him? Did his hatred help raise awareness of the Holocaust for the better? And just what is his legacy?

Zundels lifework of denying the Holocaust was an abject failure, stated Sidney Zoltak, co-president of Canadian Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants.

Prosecuting Zundel under the false news prohibition, rather than hate laws, may have been unwise

Today, Holocaust education is firmly entrenched in school curricula around the world and Holocaust remembrance is ingrained in Western culture, Zoltak told The CJN in an email. The memory of the Holocaust will long outlast Zundels legacy of anti-Semitism, hatred and evil.

In Zundels heyday, Prof. Michael Marrus, a historian at the University of Toronto, was one of the people who advised against prosecution.

The legal route left a bad taste among civil libertarians and others who feared it handed Zundel and his acolytes the publicity they craved, Marrus recalled.

Arguably, the better path was to instil consciousness of the Holocaust through the weapons of history and memory: survivors testimony, research, writing and education, he added.

As he did in the 1980s, Marrus argued that putting hatemongers in jail, or banning them from speaking, are among the least successful strategies for dealing with them.

Even so, knowledge of the Holocaust is now powerfully anchored in the collective consciousness, Marrus said. Zundels name, he conceded, is on the road to a justified oblivion.

Prosecuting Zundel under the false news prohibition, rather than hate laws, may have been unwise, said McGill University sociologist Morton Weinfeld.

On the other hand, there is evidence that media coverage of Zundel and, contemporaneously, of the trial of Holocaust-denying Alberta schoolteacher James Keegstra, did not increase anti-Semitism, and in fact helped raise awareness of the threat of Holocaust denial in the Canadian Jewish and general public, Weinfeld said.

READ: ZUNDELS GONE, BUT WE MUST NEVER STOP FIGHTING PURVEYORS OF HATE

Zundel changed Canadian law, but was it for the better?

Section 181 of the Criminal Code, under which he was charged, stated that anyone who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the section infringed on freedom of expression as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court could not have foreseen that 25 years later, false news would morph into fake news.

The courts ruling pretty well cemented in place the concept that its hard under the Criminal Code to get a conviction on the falseness of words written or spoken. Its not impossible, but its hard, said lawyer Mark Freiman, a former deputy attorney-general of Ontario and the last president of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Zundels actions led people to re-discover the Canadian Human Rights Act

On the other hand, Zundel awakened people to the need to do something about language, the kind of activity he was engaged in and the demonstrable harm this kind of propaganda can have, Freiman said.

In 2013, there were two legal milestones related to issues seen in Zundels case. The Supreme Court ruled that hate speech provisions in Canadian human rights legislation is a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression. The court upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is likely to expose certain groups to hatred.

That summer, free speech advocates claimed victory when a private members bill calling for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act the so-called hate speech provision passed and became law. Its passage meant that Canadians could no longer bring complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission over the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.

It was under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that Zundel was taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over his website, but he fled to the United States before the commission could wrap up its work.

Zundels actions led people to re-discover the Canadian Human Rights Act, Freiman said. He narrowed whats available under criminal law, but expanded whats available under other administrative areas but only if governments enact them, he noted.

What would happen if Zundel were charged under todays hate laws?

It would be very difficult to get a conviction under hate speech laws, said Freiman. I dont think that much has changed.

For Torontos Max Eisen, an Auschwitz survivor who has accompanied March of the Living groups back to the death camp more than 20 times, Zundels legacy is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, Zundel got Eisen and other survivors out on the speaking circuit. He was a wake-up call for me, Eisen said. I got involved and started to talk in the early 1990s.

But today, we have many Zundels around, and how we get used to these things, it just frightens me, he lamented. Im shocked every day when the lies become truth. We need to stand up and speak out.

In the end, Zundels legacy may not amount to much. I dont think Zundel left a legacy, unless it was just for the skinheads and people who believed the Holocaust never happened. But for the public in general, I think hes a nobody, said well-known Toronto Holocaust survivor and educator Gerda Frieberg.

That sentiment seemed to be echoed by Prof. Marrus, who said he suspects the first question his students will ask is: Ernst who?

Go here to see the original:
Death of a Holocaust denier: With Zundel’s passing, what can we take away? – Canadian Jewish News (blog)

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED …

By Kevin Barrett on March 8, 2017

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

In what amounts to a ringing endorsement of the claims of Holocaust revisionists, Amazon.com has apparently concluded that their books cannot be effectively refuted and therefore must be banned.

M.S. King, author ofThe Bad War, has been notified that his book has beenbannedfrom Amazon. The explanation:

Were contacting you regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.

Amazon did not explain precisely which guidelines had been violated, nor did it cite specific passages. Therefore the violations claim is an obvious lie. The real reason Kings book and otherswere banned is that Jewish-Zionist pressure groups have mounted a campaign (timed to accompany the cemetery desecration PR stunt?) aimed atmaking Holocaust revisionism books unavailable. Obviously they believe the revisionists claims are irrefutable and have convinced Amazon that such is the case.

Are the same peoplewho are knocking over headstones in cemeteries also pressuring Amazon to remove holocaust revisionismbooks? That would certainly fit their standard problem-reaction-solution methodology.

After MS King emailed me about the suppression of his book, I searched Amazon to see if the handful of holocaust revisionism titles Im familiar with were still there. (Disclaimer: I have only read a few books on this subject and am not a revisionist, just an open-minded truth-seekerand defender offreedom of inquiry.)

So which books have been taken down?

Thomas Daltons Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is by far the best book I have read on the Holocaust controversy. It is thorough, precise, well-documented, and lays out a convincing prima facia case that holocaust revisionism needs to be taken seriously. Scholarly, dispassionate, and utterly lacking in anything that could remotely be called hate or bigotry, Debating the Holocaust is no longer available on Amazon. And that is an outrage.

Nick Kollerstroms Breaking the Spell is also missing in action from Amazon.com.A History of Science Ph.D. with a specialty in chemistry, Dr. Kollerstrom was summarily fired, with no reason given, from University College of London after he published a scholarly article critiquing the evidence for mass execution cyanide gas chambers in the Nazi camps. His book Breaking the Spelllays out his conclusions including his explanation of how the rumor of mass gassings was initiated by British war propagandists in 1942, thensnowballed as the Nazis applied copious amounts of Zyklon-B in minature gas chambers to the clothing and bedding of inmates to kill lice and stem that summers typhusoutbreak.

So now Kollerstrom has not only been fired for voicing heretical views, but he cant even offer them in book form to the mass reading public.

Another revisionist Ive read, though not extensively, is Dr. Robert Faurisson. A convert to Islam, Faurisson is wildly popular in Morocco, where his books were recommended to me by academic colleagues there during my year of Fulbright-sponsored Ph.D. research in 1999-2000.

Has Faurissons Amazon catalogue been tampered with? I cant tell; butthere certainlyis a shocking paucity of affordable Faurisson offerings there. The only volumeof his available for less than $40 is the 1981 Journal of Historical Review v.2 n.4 he co-edited with Phillip Beck. The bulk of his work is currently unavailable.

How about Germar Rudolf, who (like Faurisson) has actually been imprisoned for his scholarly efforts on this controversial subject? Im not really familiar with his work, but I understand that he is considered one of the most serious scholars in the revisionism field. Are his booksstill on Amazon? Apparently they are.But for how long?

Update: Rudolfs books arein fact being removed see below

Another very strong pro-holocaust-revisionism voice still up on Amazon is Gerard Menuhin, whose Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil is now selling for $90. Its a passionate, eye-opening book, capable of upsetting mainstream readers preconceptions about a whole range of issues.

Listen to my radio interview with Gerard Menuhin.

And how about David Irving, who is considered a revisionist by Hollywood but not by most actual revisionists? Irvings supposed masterpiece, Hitlers War, is still available for $80. (Apparently there is a market for these disreputable and dangerous books.)

The above list covers the revisionists I know anything about.

How about those who argue against them?

Michael Shermer and Alex Grobmans Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? is available for less than five dollars. Unfortunately for anyone who cares about rational arguments and empirical evidence, Denying History is clearly inferior to Thomas Daltons Debating the Holocaust, which is no longer available on Amazon at any price.

Deborah Lipstadts Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, possibly the best-known anti-revisionism book, is also the most shockingly vapid. Lipstadt makes little effort to argue her case on its merits, but instead spends virtually the entire 304 pages lobbing hysterical ad-hominem arguments. The only sane reaction to Lipstadts unbelievably lame volume is: If this is the best the anti-revisionists can do, no wonder they have to try to get revisionists books banned! You can get a used copy for less than two dollars and fifty cents.

So here is the takeaway:

Attention, Amazon shoppers! You can still buy bad and mediocre books arguing that holocaust revisionists are wrong but you are not permitted to buy better books (including at least one very good book, Daltons Debating the Holocaust) that might lead you to the opposite conclusion.

Dear Dr. Barrett:

In your latest article, which I read with interest and gratitude, you write about a handful of revisionist books. Well, what an understatement. While Castle Hill Publishers might be the biggest fish in the revisionist teapot, were by far not the only ones publishing books in that field. But from our program alone, the following 68 titles were banned on March 6. Use the links provided to see for yourself.

Interestingly, if you look at the list of banned books, you might be astonished to find among them books which arent even dealing with the Holocaust as such:

The first two deal with Jewish emigration from the Third Reich prior to the war. It is based on mainstream sources and does not touch upon the extermination issue. The third deals with Jewish fundraising campaigns during and after the FIRST World War, and does therefore already for chronological reason not deal with the Jewish Holocaust of the SECOND World War. The last two books are highly esoteric studies of the organization, responsibilities and activities of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz, which was in charge of building and maintaining the camps infrastructure. It is based on original wartime archival material and is not dealing with extermination claims of Auschwitz at all. The book has even been cited as a source by mainstream historians.

The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem) had sent them a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.

Best regards

Germar Rudolf Production Manager

View original post here:
Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED …

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Ernst Zundel’s Neo-Nazi Legacy Will Linger Unless Toronto Fights Back – Huffington Post Canada

Hell just got a little more crowded.

Some might consider that inappropriate about the dead, nothing but good should be said, per the Yiddish proverb but, when the deceased in question is Ernst Zundel, a distinction needs to be made. Because, when the list of monsters is drawn up one day, Zundel will have achieved true distinction. In Canada, in this era, his evil and malevolence were almost without equal.

Ernst Christof Friedrich Zndel was born in Germany in April 1939, and died in Germany in August 2017. As far as we are aware, no one demanded photographic proof of his passing, or forensic evidence of the heart attack that killed him. But they would be entitled to do so.

Zundel, you see, made his name made a fortune denying the murders of millions. He achieved worldwide infamy by peddling foul, criminal conspiracy theories about the Holocaust. That was what he sought to do, day after day after interminable day: deny one of the greatest mass-murders in the history of humankind. To whitewash the sins of Hitler and the other architects of the Holocaust.

He studied graphic art in Germany, then scurried to Canada when he was 19 tellingly, to avoid conscription by the German army. In Montreal, he laboured in obscurity, acquiring some skills as a retoucher of photographs. Even then, the little man excelled at erasing reality.

Early on, his megalomania and self-delusion were manifesting themselves. In 1968, he actually ran for the Liberal Party leadership the one that was won by the father of our present prime minister. He was against “anti-German” attitudes, he told the few reporters who bothered to listen. Zundel then drifted down the highway to Toronto in 1969, where he started up another undersized commercial art studio.

Like all winged insects, he achieved a taste for the limelight. He got involved with something called Concerned Parents of German Descent, and bleated and brayed about how the media were being mean to Germans. As such, he issued press releases denouncing the acclaimed NBC TV miniseries, Holocaust. He started to get noticed, but for all of the wrong reasons.

Like all cowards, too, Ernst Zundel was leading a double life. One enterprising journalist, Mark Bonokoski, discovered that Zundel was publishing anti-Semitic screeds under the pseudonym Christoph Friedrich. One his pamphlets was The Hitler We Loved And Why.

At that point, others might have withdrawn from public view, or expressed regret, or chosen a different path. Not Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel. Not him. Zundel commenced his downward descent into the ooze and the muck of organized hatred. Now unmasked, Zundel became Canada’s top purveyor of lies.

Out of his fortified home at 206 Carlton Street in east-end Toronto, Ernst Zundel created Samisdat (meaning, to self-publish). He went on to publish more of his paean to Hitler, as well as Did Six Million Really Die?, and other such filth. In a way, he became “a run-of-the-mill neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier,” Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, told the New York Times.

But that understates Zundel’s significance. In his prime, Ernst Zundel was the most prodigious publisher of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism on the planet. In his various run-ins with the law, he was permitted appallingly to put the Holocaust on trial. And, along the way, too many gullible reporters and far too many politicians regarded him as a “free speech” advocate or a harmless crank. Ignore him, they said, and he’ll go away.

He wouldn’t. He didn’t.

For a while, Canada rid itself of the foul stench that was Ernst Zundel. He slunk out of the country, and relocated to Tennessee, where he married Ingrid Rimland another Holocaust denier. In 2003, Zundel was arrested for overstaying his visa and deported back to Canada. Two long years later, the Liberal government deported him, too back to Germany, the place he had fled to avoid military service, almost 60 years before.

His indecent legacy remains. Even now, a group of neo-Nazi Zundel fanatics are publishing a Holocaust-denying leaflet in Toronto’s east end, just like he did. Their publication is called Your Ward News. As with Zundel, gullible reporters and far too many politicians are calling the new haters “free speech” advocates or harmless cranks. Ignore them, they’re saying, and they’ll go away.

They don’t. They won’t.

Their hero may be gone, but their enthusiasm for Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism is not. The hatred may subside, some years, but it never fully goes away.

So: we must never forget. We must never falter. We must never stop fighting the purveyors of hate and lies.

Because Ernst Zundel, from his distant perch in hell, fears that, most of all.

Also on HuffPost:

Originally posted here:
Ernst Zundel’s Neo-Nazi Legacy Will Linger Unless Toronto Fights Back – Huffington Post Canada

Fair Usage Law

August 14, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Petition urges Manchester Uni to remove books by Holocaust denier David Irving – Jewish News

More than 3,000 people have signed an online petition calling on Manchester University to remove books by Holocaust denier David Irving from library shelves.

The petition, launched by the North West Friends of Israel, says: Leaving Irvings books on open display is a threat to the safety of Jewish students and staff at a time when anti-Semitic hate crime is on the rise across Europe. You can view the petition here.

The campaign is backed by Dr Irene Lancaster, Manchester Universitys first Teaching Fellow in Jewish history, as well as Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

An English historian, Irving lost a high-profile legal battle against American historian Deborah Lipstadt, having sued for libel after she described him as a Holocaust denier.

The University has refused to pull the books from the library shelves, citing freedom of speech and the stance of 20 other leading educational institutions. Last week, it also declined a compromise suggestion by Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) to label them Holocaust Denial.

However Churchill College at Cambridge and University College London have both now reclassified Irvings works, either moving them to closed access areas or inserting disclaimers inside the books.

Lancaster said her work in the study of Jewish history was in part about establishing the difference between fact and fiction, myth, historiography and history.

On the petition, she added: The signatories at least understand the pain that Manchester University is causing the Holocaust survivors and their families who live in the city as well as the duty of universities, like everyone else, to abide by this countrys laws on incitement to hatred and definition of anti-Semitism.

Lancaster, who has worked at Yad Vashem, met the Universitys associate vice-president for social responsibility Prof. James Thompson in April, but to no avail.

Retired Manchester academic Dr Yaacov Wise said colleagues thought Manchester University was continuing to fail to provide a safe and inclusive environment for Jewish students and staff, adding: This is just one more case of Jewish students and staff at Manchester University being singled out for harassment, discrimination, racism and anti-Semitism.

Read the rest here:
Petition urges Manchester Uni to remove books by Holocaust denier David Irving – Jewish News

Fair Usage Law

August 9, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Sam Leith: I’m all for free speech but this Holocaust denier’s works should be censored – Evening Standard

On the face of it, the question of where Manchester University chooses to shelve the books in its library might not seem to command national interest. But, hold up. Manchesters librarians have been criticised for resisting pressure to remove the works of the revisionist historian David Irving to closed shelves, or adding disclaimers to them warning that they are works of Holocaust denial.

A campaign for universities to do so has been led by Dr Irene Lancaster, a scholar of Jewish history, and Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and now Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Id like with the very greatest of respect for Drs Lancaster and Williams to disagree with their position and back Manchesters librarians.

Theres perhaps a case that, in an airport bookshop context, works by David Irving ought to come with disclaimers, or ought not to be stocked at all. Im not persuaded this should be a matter for the law of the land; rather, the intellectual integrity of publishers and the moral decency of the people who run airport bookshops.

But an academic library is a different thing altogether. Every book in the ideal library of Alexandria is connected to every other by myriad invisible filaments of argument, rebuttal, endorsement, citation in footnotes and entries in bibliographies. David Irvings books do not sit on open shelves in isolation, for any student to chance on and have his or her mind poisoned. You pay them an unwarranted compliment to imagine they do.

Whats the likelihood that any undergraduate in any history course in the land will alight on an Irving book and present it, unchallenged, as a primary source in a discussion of the Holocaust? And if they did, what would the likely reaction to this unlikely event be? That undergraduate would learn or more likely be history, and sharpish.

What I mean is that Irvings books already come with disclaimers. They are already discredited as history. Leave even Google aside. No student will come to an Irving book except through a citation in another book. And how many scholarly citations of his books, over the past two decades, do we reckon present him as a respectable source?

The system, in other words, works. To decide that certain items of knowledge are institutionally beyond question, or certain authors beyond the pale, and to take special measures to quarantine them, is not to affirm the strength of the system but to betray a fear about its weakness, and to betray the system itself. Academic progress is the history of error and its correction (usually by more error); and every scholarly library will contain a number, probably even a majority, of books that are wholly or partly in error. We show our workings, and we keep our notes. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Where Irving is unusual is that he has been not only found in error but he has been convicted, by the forensic examination of his distortions in open court when he sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel, of something more poisonous to academic discourse: writing in bad faith. Yet even then, scholarship plays the ball and not the man. We dont need to play the man. His ball is already entirely deflated. (For related reasons, I hesitate to think a single paragraph by a Sunday Times columnist, be it never so foul, should permanently exclude everything else he writes from the public sphere for all time.)

There is a practical point, too. As the late Christopher Hitchens did not tire of reminding us, Irving was not persecuted for his Voltairean courage in professing his beliefs. Rather, he sought to use the law of libel to suppress legitimate criticism of his work. And that, deservedly, blew up in his face.

Yet he half-succeeded, subsequently, in presenting himself as a poster boy for free speech. Quite some chutzpah. Lets not give him the chance to do it again.

I fretted here last week that we havent got any more grown-up about Diana, Princess of Wales, right, in the 20 years since she died. We present the invasion of privacy as a sacred duty to the historical record; prurience as appreciation; gross and self-delighting sentimentality as a compliment to her wonderful soul. That is the spirit in which last nights documentary was offered.

If the royal family was, as it certainly seemed to be during her lifetime, guilty of treating a suffering and vulnerable human being as an embarrassment to be hushed up, the media and public have had the opposite instinct. We treat a suffering and vulnerable human being as a sort of mythological soap star, even two decades after shes dead. Its grotesque.

And yet, out of the friction between those two positions the stiff and uncaring, the voraciously soppy came about an unprecedented transformation of the royal family for the media age. Diana did change history: not by doing so much as by being, and by suffering. She really was a sort of blood sacrifice after all.

Go here to see the original:
Sam Leith: I’m all for free speech but this Holocaust denier’s works should be censored – Evening Standard

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Ernst Zundel, deported from Canada on Holocaust denial charges, dies at 78 – Times Colonist

BERLIN German authorities have confirmed that far-right activist Ernst Zundel, who was deported from Canada and served jail time in Germany for denying the Holocaust ever happened, has died.

Zundel’s wife, Ingrid Zundel, had earlier reported her husband’s death on Saturday in an email to The Canadian Press.

She wrote that Zundel died at the home in the Black Forest in Germany where he was born.

Zundel, who was 78, was extradited in Canada in 2005 after earlier being deported from the United States for alleged immigration violations.

A Canadian judge ruled that Zundel’s activities were a threat to national security as well as ”the international community of nations,” clearing the way for his deportation to Germany later that year.

Zundel was convicted in Germany in 2007 on 14 counts of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a web site devoted to denying the Holocaust a crime in that country.

He was released from prison in 2010.

Ingrid Zundel said she believed her husband died from a heart attack, but said she wasn’t sure of many of the details. She said his sister had found him unconscious and called for an ambulance.

“I spoke to Ernst just hours before, and he was optimistic and upbeat as ever. There was no indication that anything was wrong,” Zundel wrote in the email.

Zundel had lived in both Toronto and Montreal for years after emigrating in 1958. He was rejected twice for Canadian citizenship and moved to Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, but was sent back to Canada in 2003.

He came to public attention in the 1980s with several publications including “The Hitler We Loved.”

Two attempts at prosecution in Canada ultimately foundered when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s laws against spreading false news as a violation of free speech.

The trials catapulted the permanent resident into the public spotlight and Zundel became a familiar figure with his retinue of yellow hard-hatted followers in Toronto.

He and his supporters had argued he was exercising his right to free speech. He was the subject of numerous threats and his home was once firebombed.

Federal Court Justice Pierre Blais in 2005 found Zundel to be a hatemonger who posed a threat to national security because of his close association with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups that resorted to violence to press their causes.

Upon his conviction in Germany in 2007, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress called Zundel “one of the most renowned hatemongers.”

“That will be his final epitaph,” Bernie Farber said.

Original post:
Ernst Zundel, deported from Canada on Holocaust denial charges, dies at 78 – Times Colonist

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Kevin Myers’ eager critics should feel ashamed of themselves … – Spectator.co.uk (blog)

I have been out of the country for a little while, doing my bit to support the Greek economy. I return to find a most surprising subject for the latest two minutes of hate.

Lest anyone think Im just carrying water for a friend I suppose I should say at the outset that I dont know Kevin Myers, and dont believe Ive ever met him. But like many other people I have admired his writing over the years, and think that his book Watching the Door: cheating death in 1970s Belfast is one of the best memoirs of the Troubles that I know. Brave, funny, moving and profound, it is as Andrew Marr said a book that stinks of the truth.

That work (published almost a decade ago) confirmed what anyone who had followed Myerss journalism over the years already knew which was that you couldnt find a braver or more consistent opponent of the sectarian violence which tore apart Northern Irelands society. His often unpredictable work (which is also variable in quality, as whose is not?) has certain consistent strands. One is that his hatred of the behaviour of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland extends to him taking the position (uncommon in Ireland) of looking at the Israel-Palestinian dispute and not taking it as read that there are certain justifications for murdering Israeli families in their beds.

Now I return from my holidays to find that Kevin Myers has been written off not only as an anti-Semite, but also as a Holocaust-denier. I have read his column from the Irish edition of last weekends Sunday Times and think it a pretty poor effort. Had I read it that morning I would not have read past the first few lines. But the worldwide news headlines, including as one of the lead items on the BBC? The widespread calls for him never to be allowed to publish again? And then the insistence, followed by the apparently widespread assumption, of the claim that he is a Holocaust denier? These are ugly, ugly habits to indulge in and the people who have done so for their own short-term gain should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

The column in question made what looks to me like an attempt a failed attempt as Myers himself has since concededto make a joke along the lines of Theyre no fools, these Jews. The point I imagine Myers was trying to make would appear, if anything, to have been somewhat philo-Semitic. But like a lot of philo-Semitism, it can sound uncannily close to its opposite number. And on this occasion it clearly did and the Sunday Times were right to apologise and un-publish the piece.

But once Myers was down and wounded a whole shiver of sharks closed in. There were, for instance, all the people who had been enraged by Myerss support for Israel over the years and no philo-Semites they seized the opportunity to look like they werent the nasty bigots that so many of them are. For them it must have felt like a twofer offer. Then there are the other media outlets like the BBC who cannot conceal their glee when a rival (especially a Murdoch-owned rival) appears to have slipped up. It is useless, I suppose, to quote John Donne at them.And who are these people who now come out of the woodwork whenever someone errs to declare as various groups did on this occasion not only that the condemned man should never write in one venue again but that they should never be published again anywhere, ever? What is this sinister piffle? Are we to make people utter non-persons now? Can we have a banned list of people who can never be allowed to speak in public too? What happened to allowing editors to make their own decisions about who they publish and who they dont, rather than a group of self-appointed censors demanding that certain journalists become homeless in their chosen profession?

Most disgraceful is the now widely-spread claim that Myers is not just an anti-Semite but a Holocaust denier. How did we reach the stage in our public discussion where a defence of the right to free speech including the right to free speech of actual Holocaust deniers can have all its detail swiftly glossed over and then turned over so that the person opposing Holocaust denial laws can themselves be dismissed without any attention to detail as a Holocaust denier? Only, as Myers himself memorably wrote in Watching the Door, because we appear to have reached the stage where In the absence of an agreed reality, truth is whatever youre having yourself.

Many of the public wont have the chance to evaluate this for themselves, because since the outcry over last Sundays column and the claim (swiftly Googled, and swiftly skimmed, I would guess) that a 2009 column from the Belfast Telegraph proves that Myers is also a Holocaust denier, the paper which published that column (and which made it freely available for eight years) has now removed it from the internet. Fortunately somebody has kept the text which can be read here(beneath a bit of editorialising). Any reading of that 2009 piece would make it clear that Myers is not denying that the Holocaust occurred he is making a point which has been made by many other people (including the late Christopher Hitchens) that the Holocaust-denial laws which have been instituted across our continent in recent years are poorly conceived pieces of legislation which among other things risk precisely the thing they seek to avoid in making our societies strangers to historical discussion and truth. I dont think the 2009 column is Myers best piece of journalism or argument. But its a variation of a point many others of us have made. And what should be clear even to a child reading the column is that Myers is emphatically not saying I dont think the Holocaust happened. He is saying that the genocide of European Jewry obviously did occur but that making historical events into dogma is a dangerous and in the end self-defeating pursuit.

So how do we get from there to Kevin Myers is a self-professed Holocaust denier? Only by allowing public debate to become so enfeebled that once someone cries upset were not even allowed to read for ourselves what might lead them to make such a claim or judge for ourselves whether their claims have any validity or not. No, it appears that for now were just meant to allow a culture of hysterical offence-taking to decide such things for us.

Well I hope such people dont win. Myers would appear to be a slightly difficult bugger, which is probably one reason why not many people have come to his defence. But I highlight this not just because I think we should try to retain some care for the truth, but because personally I would rather live in a country where difficult buggers who sometimes get things wrong dont get their lives and careers destroyed by mobs of offence-takers who consistently demonstrate not only that they know nothing, but that they have not the slightest interest in rectifying that error.

Read the original post:
Kevin Myers’ eager critics should feel ashamed of themselves … – Spectator.co.uk (blog)

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Why you see swastikas in America but not Germany – Vox

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed horror at the racist marches that roiled Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. It is racist, far-right violence, and clear, forceful action must be taken against it, regardless of where in the world it happens, she said on German television Monday. She might have added that such a thing wouldnt have happened in todays Germany because its illegal. While America protects the right of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups to hold public rallies and express their views openly, Germany has strict laws banning Nazi symbols and whats called Volksverhetzung incitement of the people, or hate speech. Like more than a dozen European countries, Germany also has a law criminalizing Holocaust denial. And while Confederate statues can be found in many American cities south of the Mason-Dixon Line, there are no statues of Adolph Hitler or Joseph Goebbels gracing public squares in Berlin, let alone Nazi flags or other Nazi art. Public Nazi imagery was long ago destroyed, and swastikas were long since knocked off the walls of Nazi-era buildings. The only Nazi imagery youll find is in exhibits devoted to understanding the horror of the period. The former Gestapo headquarters complex was destroyed in the 1950s. The land it once stood on now houses the Topography of Terror, a memorial and museum made of glass and steel filled with panels that narrate the brutal history of the Nazi regime. And on streets across the country, there are small brass cobblestones called stolpersteine (literally stumbling blocks), which tell passersby brief biographical details of each man, woman, or child who was deported from that spot, that house, or that block. The Civil War may have ended more than 150 years ago, but America is still dealing with how to reconcile, and memorialize, that dark period of its history. And while freedom of speech even vile, racist speech is an inviolate part of the US Constitutions First Amendment, Germanys commitment to facing its own dark past led that country to believe a mix of education and limiting free speech was the only way to ensure the past would remain past. In 1945, the conquering Allied powers took control of Germany and banned the swastika, the Nazi party, and the publication of Mein Kampf, Hitlers famously anti-Semitic text, historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus explained to me. There was a thorough effort to get rid of Nazi stragglers and Lost Cause supporters, adds historian Gavriel Rosenfeld. In 1949, the new West German government legally codified the banning of Nazi symbols and language, as well as propaganda. As Middlebury College professor Erik Bleich explained in a 2011 article for the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies on the development of hate speech and hate crimes laws, even the Heil Hitler! salute was officially banned. But that didnt mean it all disappeared overnight. After all, millions of German who had been part of the Nazi party still lived in the country. SS veterans who had fought under an ideology that was now outlawed would meet to drink and reminisce. There was always the risk, it seemed, of backsliding, even as a new menace communism rose in the east. It wasnt until the generation that came of age in the 1960s the baby boomers who became known in Europe as 68ers that a full reckoning of the war and a culture of Holocaust education began to take hold. Students rose up against the suppression of memory, demanding answers to what their parents had done just 25 years earlier. A generation of criminals was ruling society after the war and no one talked about what they had done, journalist Gnter Wallraff told Deutsche Welle in 2008. Discussing their crimes was not even a part of our school lessons. Today its mandatory in schools. The law was also evolving. After a series of synagogues and cemeteries were vandalized, Bleich explains, the West German parliament voted unanimously in 1960 to make it illegal to incite hatred, to provoke violence, or to insult, ridicule or defame parts of the population in a manner apt to breach the peace. Over time it was broadened to include racist writing. Gradually, this evolved into a concept called defensive democracy. The idea is that democracies might need a boost from some illiberal policies such as limits on free speech and the display of imagery, in this case, connected to the Holocaust and the Second World War in order to keep everyone free. In 2009 the law was strengthened again, when the German Constitutional Court officially ruled that a march to celebrate Nazi Rudolf Hess was illegal under Article 130 of the Penal Code, which bans anything that “approves of, glorifies or justifies the violent and despotic rule of the National Socialists.” Our German law centers on the strong belief that you should hinder this kind of speech in a society committed to principles of democratic coexistence and peace, Matthias Jahn, a law professor at Goethe University in Frankfurt, told the Washington Post this week. Germany still struggles with neo-Nazis and the far right. But even the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the far-right German party, ran into trouble earlier this year when one of its leaders seemed to minimize the Holocaust and bashed Germanys culture of remembrance. The party voted to remove him. By contrast, in one of our countrys most notable free speech cases, neo-Nazis were famously allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois, in 1978. This was despite the fact that the choice was made to clearly hurt the large population of Holocaust survivors, and Jews, who lived there. What Germany does is what Germany does, says University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone. They learned different lessons from history. The lesson we learned is not to trust the government to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not okay. The First Amendment does not permit the government to forbid speech because ideas are thought to be offensive or odious. That’s a message we have learned over our history: that we don’t trust the government to make that decision. If we had, he says, it likely would have been used against civil rights, womens rights, and LGBTQ rights. Earlier this year, Condoleezza Rice who was the first woman African-American secretary of state in US history was asked on Fox News if she wanted the South to erase the past by taking down the monuments to Confederate leaders. I am a firm believer in ‘keep your history before you, she told the hosts. So I don’t actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners. I want us to have to look at those names, and realize what they did, and be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of their own history. But unlike in Germany, where memorials to the victims of the Holocaust are erected on the ruins of Nazi buildings as a way to teach future generations about the sins and horrors of the past, most Confederate statues were designed to glorify the sins and horrors of the past. Professor Kirt von Daacke, co-chair of the University of Virginia President’s Commission on Slavery and the University, explains that the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was erected in 1924 as part of the apex of white supremacist rule in Virginia and the US. It was explicitly part of a project designed to claim public space for whites only and remind African Americans that they were the dominated whose lives were worthless. Both the statue of Robert E. Lee and a nearby statue of Stonewall Jackson, he continues, were installed just after the KKK marched directly into the heart of the African-American community. These statues, he says, were the final act in a 30-plus-year project in Virginia … eliminating African Americans from citizenship and the public sphere and erasing the history of the Civil War. He sees both of them as part of a Lost Cause mythology that itself was a whitewashing of history. To call these statues historical is to be willfully ignorant of history, he adds. The statues are monuments to white supremacy, not to Lee, not to Jackson. That said, not everyone agrees that the obvious answer is immediate removal. Alfred Brophy, a law professor at the University of Alabama, wrote me he believes its generally not the right idea to remove a statue because we should not allow our country to forget that there was once a time when the people in power celebrated the Confederacy and its support of slavery. Whitewashing took place, he explains, when the history of the South was rewritten to be about states rights rather than slavery. I think there’s a ton of validity to the argument that removal of statues facilitates forgetting, he said. Once the public space is cleared of Confederate statues, it’s easy to forget that Confederate statues once blanketed the countryside. They serve as stark reminders of the bad old days. He worries, though, that there is a good argument for removing them after Charlottesville. When a monument serves as a contemporary rallying point, then we need to remove them, I suspect.

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Censor white supremacy – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for Our free email newsletters One of the most welcome political developments of my lifetime is the growing suspicion with which attempts to cloak even the most detestable utterances under the mantle of “free speech” is regarded. From the misogynistic obscurantism of #GamerGate (years later I still can’t find anyone who can tell me what the “-gate” was) and the painfully unfunny parody of stand-up comedy performed on college campuses by the expatriate employer of ghostwriters known as Milo Yiannopoulos to the latter-day phrenology of the so-called alt-right and the unabashed Holocaust denial of Stormfront, there are expressions that most of us consider on their face unacceptable and undeserving of a platform. The difference is that now increasingly it looks as if people have concluded that it is our duty to make sure they are denied one. Thank God for SJWs! This was not always the case. There is a long history in this country of making grandiose blanket defenses of freedom of speech that extend to bigots, frauds, pornographers, genocidal enthusiasts, propagators of terrorism and sedition, and kooks emotionally invested in nonsense and villainy of every conceivable variety. People who make arguments defending, say, the rights of pseudo-historians to argue that the Nazis did not murder millions of European Jews or the ancient liberty of perverts to create simulations of child pornography call themselves “free speech absolutists.” Their position has never been tenable, but it has long enjoyed a mainstream currency in the United States, in classrooms, and in the pages of newspapers and magazines and even on the bench of the Supreme Court. This is because freedom of speech in the way that is usually discussed in this country is a cartoonish fantasy. There has never been a community in which certain ideas have not been considered open for discussion or debate. As Stanley Fish argued in his famous essay “There is no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too,” the liberal concept of freedom of speech is not some kind of immutable principle woven into the fabric of reality; it is an idea and a very new, albeit frequently misunderstood one. As Fish points out, the ur-text for what we think of as freedom of expression, quoted on a monument familiar to those who visited the Rose Main Reading Room of the New York Public Library, is John Milton’s 1642 treatise Aeropagitica. There the Puritan poet and pamphleteer makes many arguments that will sound familiar to Americans in the 21st century: Allowing the largest possible number of viewpoints to be expressed publicly means that we have access to more good ideas; the task of sifting through a wide range of opinions sharpens our intellects and forces us to refine our own arguments; moreover, actively proscribing certain expressions may lend them a certain kind of romantic credibility, whereas simply ignoring them will result in their being mostly ignored. What almost no one acknowledges, except in the act of attempting to explain it away, is the following qualification, which was absolutely crucial for Milton: I mean not tolerated Popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpats all religions and civill supremacies, so it self should be extirpat, provided first that all charitable and compassionat means be us’d to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or maners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw it self. [Aeropagitica] In other words, Milton argues, all free speech is acceptable except any speech that promotes the teachings of the Catholic Church or paganism or atheism. Brushing this off as mere prejudice or oversight would be a gross anachronism. Milton makes this qualification precisely because Catholicism and atheism are incompatible with the kind of society for which he is arguing. Giving Catholics or atheists a hearing would be an act of violence tearing away at the foundations of the Christian commonwealth he hoped to establish. Very few Americans today are interested in setting up a community based on 17th-century Protestant notions of biblical morality. But Milton’s pamphlet remains relevant. All societies have certain organizing principles. Freedom of speech is not a first-order good; it exists only to facilitate the flourishing of the society along the lines established by those principles. In America today one of those principles is that discrimination based on race is immoral; people who disagree with this have only one goal creating a society in which it is not one of those principles. If we do not want to allow this to happen, we should not permit anyone to argue in favor of it. To pretend otherwise and posture on behalf of the abstract rights of racist crank is not, as “absolutists” pretend, to defend speech but to demean it, to diminish it to the level of undifferentiated random noise. This is because every act of expression takes place against the invisible backdrop of all the expressions not taking place; an argument in the pages of The Washington Post about a murder assumes that murder is a crime, and it would not occur to the reporter that, when seeking comment from the police department and the suspect’s attorney, he should also solicit the opinions of a hypothetical man in Arkansas who thinks that murder should not be a crime. To fail to see how any given act of speech only makes sense in the absence of other possible but absolutely inadmissible expressions is childish. Assuming that a new scholarly biography of Hitler and Holocaust-denying memes traded by basement dwellers on the internet are both “speech,” expressions of potentially equal value whose worth is ultimate determined by what readers decide to make of them, is not an exercise in tolerance; it is nihilism. Which brings us to the recent decisions by Go Daddy and Google to deny the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi publication, a home on their web hosting platforms. I have yet to see anyone find fault with this decision even though realistically speaking it amounts to censorship. This is in itself a good thing, though few people have acknowledged it as such. At present it is easy to ignore the elephant in the room by saying that these are private companies free to make their own decisions about what viewpoints can be expressed on web servers that they own and control. But there are only so many web hosting services. Suppose no one was willing to offer these Hitler fanboys room to air their grievances with African-Americans and Jews on the internet suppose that they could find no publisher willing to reproduce their pamphlets and no one willing to sell them a Xerox machine and paper to distribute them on their own? Would it still be okay? Why is it reasonable to pretend that an action that is licit and even commendable when taken by a corporation that will soon be worth $1 trillion would be unjust if an ill-defined entity called “the state” undertook it? The world in which the government enjoys a monopoly on coercion and corporations are not state entities whose actions would not be possible without a vast infrastructure and legal apparatus in which they operate is a fantasy. The procedural question of who is responsible for the censorship is beside the point. The only relevant one is whether it is laudable. I for one am happy that the Daily Stormer is gone. People who agree with me need to ask themselves why they would have found it upsetting if the Department of Justice had shut it down.

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Death of a Holocaust denier: With Zundel’s passing, what can we take away? – Canadian Jewish News (blog)

Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, counsels the book of Proverbs. That may have been a hard sell when news of Ernst Zundels death in Germany reached Canada earlier this month. Zundel, whos been described as the worlds foremost purveyor of Holocaust denial literature, wrote titles such as, The Hitler We Loved and Why, and distributed hate literature, including Richard Harwoods 1974 booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last. Zundel delighted in his notoriety and needled the Jewish community with glee. From his infamous bunker in Torontos Cabbagetown neighbourhood, he continued to publish viciously anti-Semitic tracts and courted publicity relentlessly, even running for the federal Liberal leadership in 1968. In the days before the Internet, media exposure was his oxygen. In time, serious debate arose in Jewish circles over whether legal action should be taken. Hardly anyone said Zundel shouldnt be punished. The issue was whether going public would provide him with the platform he craved and embolden his fellow neo-Nazis, and whether, in the long run, it would hurt the community. Was it better to let him and his dark ideas shrivel in the light of truth, or to try to bring the full extent of the law down upon him? Numerous prominent voices, including civil libertarian Alan Borovoy and high-profile criminal lawyer Edward Greenspan, spoke out against prosecution. In the end, Zundel faced two trials that resulted in convictions and an ultimate acquittal when the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly struck down the false news section of the Criminal Code, under which he was charged. It was his native Germany that finally jailed him for inciting racial hatred. READ: WHITE SUPREMACY SEXUALIZED: THE YOUNG, FEMALE FACES OF HATE But those who recall the Toronto trials, in 1985 and 1988, will also remember the blaring newspaper headlines of swimming pools at Auschwitz and no evidence of gas chambers. That hurt many in the Jewish community and seemed to vindicate those who had warned against using open courts. With Zundels demise comes questions that have had the benefit of 30 years consideration: Was it, in the end, a good idea to prosecute him? Did his hatred help raise awareness of the Holocaust for the better? And just what is his legacy? Zundels lifework of denying the Holocaust was an abject failure, stated Sidney Zoltak, co-president of Canadian Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants. Prosecuting Zundel under the false news prohibition, rather than hate laws, may have been unwise Today, Holocaust education is firmly entrenched in school curricula around the world and Holocaust remembrance is ingrained in Western culture, Zoltak told The CJN in an email. The memory of the Holocaust will long outlast Zundels legacy of anti-Semitism, hatred and evil. In Zundels heyday, Prof. Michael Marrus, a historian at the University of Toronto, was one of the people who advised against prosecution. The legal route left a bad taste among civil libertarians and others who feared it handed Zundel and his acolytes the publicity they craved, Marrus recalled. Arguably, the better path was to instil consciousness of the Holocaust through the weapons of history and memory: survivors testimony, research, writing and education, he added. As he did in the 1980s, Marrus argued that putting hatemongers in jail, or banning them from speaking, are among the least successful strategies for dealing with them. Even so, knowledge of the Holocaust is now powerfully anchored in the collective consciousness, Marrus said. Zundels name, he conceded, is on the road to a justified oblivion. Prosecuting Zundel under the false news prohibition, rather than hate laws, may have been unwise, said McGill University sociologist Morton Weinfeld. On the other hand, there is evidence that media coverage of Zundel and, contemporaneously, of the trial of Holocaust-denying Alberta schoolteacher James Keegstra, did not increase anti-Semitism, and in fact helped raise awareness of the threat of Holocaust denial in the Canadian Jewish and general public, Weinfeld said. READ: ZUNDELS GONE, BUT WE MUST NEVER STOP FIGHTING PURVEYORS OF HATE Zundel changed Canadian law, but was it for the better? Section 181 of the Criminal Code, under which he was charged, stated that anyone who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the section infringed on freedom of expression as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court could not have foreseen that 25 years later, false news would morph into fake news. The courts ruling pretty well cemented in place the concept that its hard under the Criminal Code to get a conviction on the falseness of words written or spoken. Its not impossible, but its hard, said lawyer Mark Freiman, a former deputy attorney-general of Ontario and the last president of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Zundels actions led people to re-discover the Canadian Human Rights Act On the other hand, Zundel awakened people to the need to do something about language, the kind of activity he was engaged in and the demonstrable harm this kind of propaganda can have, Freiman said. In 2013, there were two legal milestones related to issues seen in Zundels case. The Supreme Court ruled that hate speech provisions in Canadian human rights legislation is a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression. The court upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is likely to expose certain groups to hatred. That summer, free speech advocates claimed victory when a private members bill calling for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act the so-called hate speech provision passed and became law. Its passage meant that Canadians could no longer bring complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission over the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet. It was under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that Zundel was taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over his website, but he fled to the United States before the commission could wrap up its work. Zundels actions led people to re-discover the Canadian Human Rights Act, Freiman said. He narrowed whats available under criminal law, but expanded whats available under other administrative areas but only if governments enact them, he noted. What would happen if Zundel were charged under todays hate laws? It would be very difficult to get a conviction under hate speech laws, said Freiman. I dont think that much has changed. For Torontos Max Eisen, an Auschwitz survivor who has accompanied March of the Living groups back to the death camp more than 20 times, Zundels legacy is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Zundel got Eisen and other survivors out on the speaking circuit. He was a wake-up call for me, Eisen said. I got involved and started to talk in the early 1990s. But today, we have many Zundels around, and how we get used to these things, it just frightens me, he lamented. Im shocked every day when the lies become truth. We need to stand up and speak out. In the end, Zundels legacy may not amount to much. I dont think Zundel left a legacy, unless it was just for the skinheads and people who believed the Holocaust never happened. But for the public in general, I think hes a nobody, said well-known Toronto Holocaust survivor and educator Gerda Frieberg. That sentiment seemed to be echoed by Prof. Marrus, who said he suspects the first question his students will ask is: Ernst who?

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED …

By Kevin Barrett on March 8, 2017 By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor In what amounts to a ringing endorsement of the claims of Holocaust revisionists, Amazon.com has apparently concluded that their books cannot be effectively refuted and therefore must be banned. M.S. King, author ofThe Bad War, has been notified that his book has beenbannedfrom Amazon. The explanation: Were contacting you regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale. Amazon did not explain precisely which guidelines had been violated, nor did it cite specific passages. Therefore the violations claim is an obvious lie. The real reason Kings book and otherswere banned is that Jewish-Zionist pressure groups have mounted a campaign (timed to accompany the cemetery desecration PR stunt?) aimed atmaking Holocaust revisionism books unavailable. Obviously they believe the revisionists claims are irrefutable and have convinced Amazon that such is the case. Are the same peoplewho are knocking over headstones in cemeteries also pressuring Amazon to remove holocaust revisionismbooks? That would certainly fit their standard problem-reaction-solution methodology. After MS King emailed me about the suppression of his book, I searched Amazon to see if the handful of holocaust revisionism titles Im familiar with were still there. (Disclaimer: I have only read a few books on this subject and am not a revisionist, just an open-minded truth-seekerand defender offreedom of inquiry.) So which books have been taken down? Thomas Daltons Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is by far the best book I have read on the Holocaust controversy. It is thorough, precise, well-documented, and lays out a convincing prima facia case that holocaust revisionism needs to be taken seriously. Scholarly, dispassionate, and utterly lacking in anything that could remotely be called hate or bigotry, Debating the Holocaust is no longer available on Amazon. And that is an outrage. Nick Kollerstroms Breaking the Spell is also missing in action from Amazon.com.A History of Science Ph.D. with a specialty in chemistry, Dr. Kollerstrom was summarily fired, with no reason given, from University College of London after he published a scholarly article critiquing the evidence for mass execution cyanide gas chambers in the Nazi camps. His book Breaking the Spelllays out his conclusions including his explanation of how the rumor of mass gassings was initiated by British war propagandists in 1942, thensnowballed as the Nazis applied copious amounts of Zyklon-B in minature gas chambers to the clothing and bedding of inmates to kill lice and stem that summers typhusoutbreak. So now Kollerstrom has not only been fired for voicing heretical views, but he cant even offer them in book form to the mass reading public. Another revisionist Ive read, though not extensively, is Dr. Robert Faurisson. A convert to Islam, Faurisson is wildly popular in Morocco, where his books were recommended to me by academic colleagues there during my year of Fulbright-sponsored Ph.D. research in 1999-2000. Has Faurissons Amazon catalogue been tampered with? I cant tell; butthere certainlyis a shocking paucity of affordable Faurisson offerings there. The only volumeof his available for less than $40 is the 1981 Journal of Historical Review v.2 n.4 he co-edited with Phillip Beck. The bulk of his work is currently unavailable. How about Germar Rudolf, who (like Faurisson) has actually been imprisoned for his scholarly efforts on this controversial subject? Im not really familiar with his work, but I understand that he is considered one of the most serious scholars in the revisionism field. Are his booksstill on Amazon? Apparently they are.But for how long? Update: Rudolfs books arein fact being removed see below Another very strong pro-holocaust-revisionism voice still up on Amazon is Gerard Menuhin, whose Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil is now selling for $90. Its a passionate, eye-opening book, capable of upsetting mainstream readers preconceptions about a whole range of issues. Listen to my radio interview with Gerard Menuhin. And how about David Irving, who is considered a revisionist by Hollywood but not by most actual revisionists? Irvings supposed masterpiece, Hitlers War, is still available for $80. (Apparently there is a market for these disreputable and dangerous books.) The above list covers the revisionists I know anything about. How about those who argue against them? Michael Shermer and Alex Grobmans Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? is available for less than five dollars. Unfortunately for anyone who cares about rational arguments and empirical evidence, Denying History is clearly inferior to Thomas Daltons Debating the Holocaust, which is no longer available on Amazon at any price. Deborah Lipstadts Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, possibly the best-known anti-revisionism book, is also the most shockingly vapid. Lipstadt makes little effort to argue her case on its merits, but instead spends virtually the entire 304 pages lobbing hysterical ad-hominem arguments. The only sane reaction to Lipstadts unbelievably lame volume is: If this is the best the anti-revisionists can do, no wonder they have to try to get revisionists books banned! You can get a used copy for less than two dollars and fifty cents. So here is the takeaway: Attention, Amazon shoppers! You can still buy bad and mediocre books arguing that holocaust revisionists are wrong but you are not permitted to buy better books (including at least one very good book, Daltons Debating the Holocaust) that might lead you to the opposite conclusion. Dear Dr. Barrett: In your latest article, which I read with interest and gratitude, you write about a handful of revisionist books. Well, what an understatement. While Castle Hill Publishers might be the biggest fish in the revisionist teapot, were by far not the only ones publishing books in that field. But from our program alone, the following 68 titles were banned on March 6. Use the links provided to see for yourself. Interestingly, if you look at the list of banned books, you might be astonished to find among them books which arent even dealing with the Holocaust as such: The first two deal with Jewish emigration from the Third Reich prior to the war. It is based on mainstream sources and does not touch upon the extermination issue. The third deals with Jewish fundraising campaigns during and after the FIRST World War, and does therefore already for chronological reason not deal with the Jewish Holocaust of the SECOND World War. The last two books are highly esoteric studies of the organization, responsibilities and activities of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz, which was in charge of building and maintaining the camps infrastructure. It is based on original wartime archival material and is not dealing with extermination claims of Auschwitz at all. The book has even been cited as a source by mainstream historians. The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem) had sent them a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list. Best regards Germar Rudolf Production Manager

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Ernst Zundel’s Neo-Nazi Legacy Will Linger Unless Toronto Fights Back – Huffington Post Canada

Hell just got a little more crowded. Some might consider that inappropriate about the dead, nothing but good should be said, per the Yiddish proverb but, when the deceased in question is Ernst Zundel, a distinction needs to be made. Because, when the list of monsters is drawn up one day, Zundel will have achieved true distinction. In Canada, in this era, his evil and malevolence were almost without equal. Ernst Christof Friedrich Zndel was born in Germany in April 1939, and died in Germany in August 2017. As far as we are aware, no one demanded photographic proof of his passing, or forensic evidence of the heart attack that killed him. But they would be entitled to do so. Zundel, you see, made his name made a fortune denying the murders of millions. He achieved worldwide infamy by peddling foul, criminal conspiracy theories about the Holocaust. That was what he sought to do, day after day after interminable day: deny one of the greatest mass-murders in the history of humankind. To whitewash the sins of Hitler and the other architects of the Holocaust. He studied graphic art in Germany, then scurried to Canada when he was 19 tellingly, to avoid conscription by the German army. In Montreal, he laboured in obscurity, acquiring some skills as a retoucher of photographs. Even then, the little man excelled at erasing reality. Early on, his megalomania and self-delusion were manifesting themselves. In 1968, he actually ran for the Liberal Party leadership the one that was won by the father of our present prime minister. He was against “anti-German” attitudes, he told the few reporters who bothered to listen. Zundel then drifted down the highway to Toronto in 1969, where he started up another undersized commercial art studio. Like all winged insects, he achieved a taste for the limelight. He got involved with something called Concerned Parents of German Descent, and bleated and brayed about how the media were being mean to Germans. As such, he issued press releases denouncing the acclaimed NBC TV miniseries, Holocaust. He started to get noticed, but for all of the wrong reasons. Like all cowards, too, Ernst Zundel was leading a double life. One enterprising journalist, Mark Bonokoski, discovered that Zundel was publishing anti-Semitic screeds under the pseudonym Christoph Friedrich. One his pamphlets was The Hitler We Loved And Why. At that point, others might have withdrawn from public view, or expressed regret, or chosen a different path. Not Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel. Not him. Zundel commenced his downward descent into the ooze and the muck of organized hatred. Now unmasked, Zundel became Canada’s top purveyor of lies. Out of his fortified home at 206 Carlton Street in east-end Toronto, Ernst Zundel created Samisdat (meaning, to self-publish). He went on to publish more of his paean to Hitler, as well as Did Six Million Really Die?, and other such filth. In a way, he became “a run-of-the-mill neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier,” Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, told the New York Times. But that understates Zundel’s significance. In his prime, Ernst Zundel was the most prodigious publisher of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism on the planet. In his various run-ins with the law, he was permitted appallingly to put the Holocaust on trial. And, along the way, too many gullible reporters and far too many politicians regarded him as a “free speech” advocate or a harmless crank. Ignore him, they said, and he’ll go away. He wouldn’t. He didn’t. For a while, Canada rid itself of the foul stench that was Ernst Zundel. He slunk out of the country, and relocated to Tennessee, where he married Ingrid Rimland another Holocaust denier. In 2003, Zundel was arrested for overstaying his visa and deported back to Canada. Two long years later, the Liberal government deported him, too back to Germany, the place he had fled to avoid military service, almost 60 years before. His indecent legacy remains. Even now, a group of neo-Nazi Zundel fanatics are publishing a Holocaust-denying leaflet in Toronto’s east end, just like he did. Their publication is called Your Ward News. As with Zundel, gullible reporters and far too many politicians are calling the new haters “free speech” advocates or harmless cranks. Ignore them, they’re saying, and they’ll go away. They don’t. They won’t. Their hero may be gone, but their enthusiasm for Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism is not. The hatred may subside, some years, but it never fully goes away. So: we must never forget. We must never falter. We must never stop fighting the purveyors of hate and lies. Because Ernst Zundel, from his distant perch in hell, fears that, most of all. Also on HuffPost:

Fair Usage Law

August 14, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Petition urges Manchester Uni to remove books by Holocaust denier David Irving – Jewish News

More than 3,000 people have signed an online petition calling on Manchester University to remove books by Holocaust denier David Irving from library shelves. The petition, launched by the North West Friends of Israel, says: Leaving Irvings books on open display is a threat to the safety of Jewish students and staff at a time when anti-Semitic hate crime is on the rise across Europe. You can view the petition here. The campaign is backed by Dr Irene Lancaster, Manchester Universitys first Teaching Fellow in Jewish history, as well as Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. An English historian, Irving lost a high-profile legal battle against American historian Deborah Lipstadt, having sued for libel after she described him as a Holocaust denier. The University has refused to pull the books from the library shelves, citing freedom of speech and the stance of 20 other leading educational institutions. Last week, it also declined a compromise suggestion by Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) to label them Holocaust Denial. However Churchill College at Cambridge and University College London have both now reclassified Irvings works, either moving them to closed access areas or inserting disclaimers inside the books. Lancaster said her work in the study of Jewish history was in part about establishing the difference between fact and fiction, myth, historiography and history. On the petition, she added: The signatories at least understand the pain that Manchester University is causing the Holocaust survivors and their families who live in the city as well as the duty of universities, like everyone else, to abide by this countrys laws on incitement to hatred and definition of anti-Semitism. Lancaster, who has worked at Yad Vashem, met the Universitys associate vice-president for social responsibility Prof. James Thompson in April, but to no avail. Retired Manchester academic Dr Yaacov Wise said colleagues thought Manchester University was continuing to fail to provide a safe and inclusive environment for Jewish students and staff, adding: This is just one more case of Jewish students and staff at Manchester University being singled out for harassment, discrimination, racism and anti-Semitism.

Fair Usage Law

August 9, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Sam Leith: I’m all for free speech but this Holocaust denier’s works should be censored – Evening Standard

On the face of it, the question of where Manchester University chooses to shelve the books in its library might not seem to command national interest. But, hold up. Manchesters librarians have been criticised for resisting pressure to remove the works of the revisionist historian David Irving to closed shelves, or adding disclaimers to them warning that they are works of Holocaust denial. A campaign for universities to do so has been led by Dr Irene Lancaster, a scholar of Jewish history, and Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and now Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Id like with the very greatest of respect for Drs Lancaster and Williams to disagree with their position and back Manchesters librarians. Theres perhaps a case that, in an airport bookshop context, works by David Irving ought to come with disclaimers, or ought not to be stocked at all. Im not persuaded this should be a matter for the law of the land; rather, the intellectual integrity of publishers and the moral decency of the people who run airport bookshops. But an academic library is a different thing altogether. Every book in the ideal library of Alexandria is connected to every other by myriad invisible filaments of argument, rebuttal, endorsement, citation in footnotes and entries in bibliographies. David Irvings books do not sit on open shelves in isolation, for any student to chance on and have his or her mind poisoned. You pay them an unwarranted compliment to imagine they do. Whats the likelihood that any undergraduate in any history course in the land will alight on an Irving book and present it, unchallenged, as a primary source in a discussion of the Holocaust? And if they did, what would the likely reaction to this unlikely event be? That undergraduate would learn or more likely be history, and sharpish. What I mean is that Irvings books already come with disclaimers. They are already discredited as history. Leave even Google aside. No student will come to an Irving book except through a citation in another book. And how many scholarly citations of his books, over the past two decades, do we reckon present him as a respectable source? The system, in other words, works. To decide that certain items of knowledge are institutionally beyond question, or certain authors beyond the pale, and to take special measures to quarantine them, is not to affirm the strength of the system but to betray a fear about its weakness, and to betray the system itself. Academic progress is the history of error and its correction (usually by more error); and every scholarly library will contain a number, probably even a majority, of books that are wholly or partly in error. We show our workings, and we keep our notes. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Where Irving is unusual is that he has been not only found in error but he has been convicted, by the forensic examination of his distortions in open court when he sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel, of something more poisonous to academic discourse: writing in bad faith. Yet even then, scholarship plays the ball and not the man. We dont need to play the man. His ball is already entirely deflated. (For related reasons, I hesitate to think a single paragraph by a Sunday Times columnist, be it never so foul, should permanently exclude everything else he writes from the public sphere for all time.) There is a practical point, too. As the late Christopher Hitchens did not tire of reminding us, Irving was not persecuted for his Voltairean courage in professing his beliefs. Rather, he sought to use the law of libel to suppress legitimate criticism of his work. And that, deservedly, blew up in his face. Yet he half-succeeded, subsequently, in presenting himself as a poster boy for free speech. Quite some chutzpah. Lets not give him the chance to do it again. I fretted here last week that we havent got any more grown-up about Diana, Princess of Wales, right, in the 20 years since she died. We present the invasion of privacy as a sacred duty to the historical record; prurience as appreciation; gross and self-delighting sentimentality as a compliment to her wonderful soul. That is the spirit in which last nights documentary was offered. If the royal family was, as it certainly seemed to be during her lifetime, guilty of treating a suffering and vulnerable human being as an embarrassment to be hushed up, the media and public have had the opposite instinct. We treat a suffering and vulnerable human being as a sort of mythological soap star, even two decades after shes dead. Its grotesque. And yet, out of the friction between those two positions the stiff and uncaring, the voraciously soppy came about an unprecedented transformation of the royal family for the media age. Diana did change history: not by doing so much as by being, and by suffering. She really was a sort of blood sacrifice after all.

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Ernst Zundel, deported from Canada on Holocaust denial charges, dies at 78 – Times Colonist

BERLIN German authorities have confirmed that far-right activist Ernst Zundel, who was deported from Canada and served jail time in Germany for denying the Holocaust ever happened, has died. Zundel’s wife, Ingrid Zundel, had earlier reported her husband’s death on Saturday in an email to The Canadian Press. She wrote that Zundel died at the home in the Black Forest in Germany where he was born. Zundel, who was 78, was extradited in Canada in 2005 after earlier being deported from the United States for alleged immigration violations. A Canadian judge ruled that Zundel’s activities were a threat to national security as well as ”the international community of nations,” clearing the way for his deportation to Germany later that year. Zundel was convicted in Germany in 2007 on 14 counts of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a web site devoted to denying the Holocaust a crime in that country. He was released from prison in 2010. Ingrid Zundel said she believed her husband died from a heart attack, but said she wasn’t sure of many of the details. She said his sister had found him unconscious and called for an ambulance. “I spoke to Ernst just hours before, and he was optimistic and upbeat as ever. There was no indication that anything was wrong,” Zundel wrote in the email. Zundel had lived in both Toronto and Montreal for years after emigrating in 1958. He was rejected twice for Canadian citizenship and moved to Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, but was sent back to Canada in 2003. He came to public attention in the 1980s with several publications including “The Hitler We Loved.” Two attempts at prosecution in Canada ultimately foundered when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s laws against spreading false news as a violation of free speech. The trials catapulted the permanent resident into the public spotlight and Zundel became a familiar figure with his retinue of yellow hard-hatted followers in Toronto. He and his supporters had argued he was exercising his right to free speech. He was the subject of numerous threats and his home was once firebombed. Federal Court Justice Pierre Blais in 2005 found Zundel to be a hatemonger who posed a threat to national security because of his close association with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups that resorted to violence to press their causes. Upon his conviction in Germany in 2007, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress called Zundel “one of the most renowned hatemongers.” “That will be his final epitaph,” Bernie Farber said.

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Kevin Myers’ eager critics should feel ashamed of themselves … – Spectator.co.uk (blog)

I have been out of the country for a little while, doing my bit to support the Greek economy. I return to find a most surprising subject for the latest two minutes of hate. Lest anyone think Im just carrying water for a friend I suppose I should say at the outset that I dont know Kevin Myers, and dont believe Ive ever met him. But like many other people I have admired his writing over the years, and think that his book Watching the Door: cheating death in 1970s Belfast is one of the best memoirs of the Troubles that I know. Brave, funny, moving and profound, it is as Andrew Marr said a book that stinks of the truth. That work (published almost a decade ago) confirmed what anyone who had followed Myerss journalism over the years already knew which was that you couldnt find a braver or more consistent opponent of the sectarian violence which tore apart Northern Irelands society. His often unpredictable work (which is also variable in quality, as whose is not?) has certain consistent strands. One is that his hatred of the behaviour of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland extends to him taking the position (uncommon in Ireland) of looking at the Israel-Palestinian dispute and not taking it as read that there are certain justifications for murdering Israeli families in their beds. Now I return from my holidays to find that Kevin Myers has been written off not only as an anti-Semite, but also as a Holocaust-denier. I have read his column from the Irish edition of last weekends Sunday Times and think it a pretty poor effort. Had I read it that morning I would not have read past the first few lines. But the worldwide news headlines, including as one of the lead items on the BBC? The widespread calls for him never to be allowed to publish again? And then the insistence, followed by the apparently widespread assumption, of the claim that he is a Holocaust denier? These are ugly, ugly habits to indulge in and the people who have done so for their own short-term gain should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The column in question made what looks to me like an attempt a failed attempt as Myers himself has since concededto make a joke along the lines of Theyre no fools, these Jews. The point I imagine Myers was trying to make would appear, if anything, to have been somewhat philo-Semitic. But like a lot of philo-Semitism, it can sound uncannily close to its opposite number. And on this occasion it clearly did and the Sunday Times were right to apologise and un-publish the piece. But once Myers was down and wounded a whole shiver of sharks closed in. There were, for instance, all the people who had been enraged by Myerss support for Israel over the years and no philo-Semites they seized the opportunity to look like they werent the nasty bigots that so many of them are. For them it must have felt like a twofer offer. Then there are the other media outlets like the BBC who cannot conceal their glee when a rival (especially a Murdoch-owned rival) appears to have slipped up. It is useless, I suppose, to quote John Donne at them.And who are these people who now come out of the woodwork whenever someone errs to declare as various groups did on this occasion not only that the condemned man should never write in one venue again but that they should never be published again anywhere, ever? What is this sinister piffle? Are we to make people utter non-persons now? Can we have a banned list of people who can never be allowed to speak in public too? What happened to allowing editors to make their own decisions about who they publish and who they dont, rather than a group of self-appointed censors demanding that certain journalists become homeless in their chosen profession? Most disgraceful is the now widely-spread claim that Myers is not just an anti-Semite but a Holocaust denier. How did we reach the stage in our public discussion where a defence of the right to free speech including the right to free speech of actual Holocaust deniers can have all its detail swiftly glossed over and then turned over so that the person opposing Holocaust denial laws can themselves be dismissed without any attention to detail as a Holocaust denier? Only, as Myers himself memorably wrote in Watching the Door, because we appear to have reached the stage where In the absence of an agreed reality, truth is whatever youre having yourself. Many of the public wont have the chance to evaluate this for themselves, because since the outcry over last Sundays column and the claim (swiftly Googled, and swiftly skimmed, I would guess) that a 2009 column from the Belfast Telegraph proves that Myers is also a Holocaust denier, the paper which published that column (and which made it freely available for eight years) has now removed it from the internet. Fortunately somebody has kept the text which can be read here(beneath a bit of editorialising). Any reading of that 2009 piece would make it clear that Myers is not denying that the Holocaust occurred he is making a point which has been made by many other people (including the late Christopher Hitchens) that the Holocaust-denial laws which have been instituted across our continent in recent years are poorly conceived pieces of legislation which among other things risk precisely the thing they seek to avoid in making our societies strangers to historical discussion and truth. I dont think the 2009 column is Myers best piece of journalism or argument. But its a variation of a point many others of us have made. And what should be clear even to a child reading the column is that Myers is emphatically not saying I dont think the Holocaust happened. He is saying that the genocide of European Jewry obviously did occur but that making historical events into dogma is a dangerous and in the end self-defeating pursuit. So how do we get from there to Kevin Myers is a self-professed Holocaust denier? Only by allowing public debate to become so enfeebled that once someone cries upset were not even allowed to read for ourselves what might lead them to make such a claim or judge for ourselves whether their claims have any validity or not. No, it appears that for now were just meant to allow a culture of hysterical offence-taking to decide such things for us. Well I hope such people dont win. Myers would appear to be a slightly difficult bugger, which is probably one reason why not many people have come to his defence. But I highlight this not just because I think we should try to retain some care for the truth, but because personally I would rather live in a country where difficult buggers who sometimes get things wrong dont get their lives and careers destroyed by mobs of offence-takers who consistently demonstrate not only that they know nothing, but that they have not the slightest interest in rectifying that error.

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."