Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

Trump official once called defender of Holocaust deniers a ‘national treasure’ – The Times of Israel

WASHINGTON The person US President Donald Trump chose to lead federal family-planning programs once referred to a defender of Holocaust deniers as a national treasure.

Teresa Manning, Trumps pick for deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services is known for her history as a fierce anti-abortion activist and former lobbyist with the National Right to Life Committee.

She also has a history defending and praising Joe Sobran, a former columnist and editor for the conservative magazine National Review until its then editor William Buckley fired him for writings he considered contextually anti-Semitic.

Mother Jones was first to report Mannings history with Sobran, who died in 2010.

Joseph Sobran (Wike Media)

During a January 2003 event promoting her book Back to The Drawing Board: The Future of the Pro-Life Movement, Manning introduced Sobran, who was a speaker, and said of him: He has been called the finest columnist of his generation as well as a national treasure. I wholeheartedly agree with both statements.

In fact, it was Pat Buchanan, who himself has doubted the death toll of the Holocaust and who the Anti-Defamation League has called an unrepentant bigot, who was responsible for the former quote.

During the years between Sobrans unceremonious 1993 departure from the National Review and Mannings introduction, he repeatedly defended an organization that denies the Holocaust while also churning out his own writings containing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Through columns and speeches, Sobran has spoken fondly of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), an organization best known for publishing articles and books denying the Holocaust and that scholars consider one of the leading vehicles for the international Holocaust denial movement.

Teresa Manning (Screenshot/YouTube)

The Southern Poverty Law Center refers to the IHR as a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek truth and accuracy in history, but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism.

Indeed, one article published in the think-tanks magazine referred to Kristallnacht as quite extraordinary.

The author, Ingrid Weckert, said it was a radical aberration from the normal pattern of daily life. The outburst was not in keeping with either the official National Socialist Jewish policy nor with the general German attitude towards the Jews. The Germans were no more anti-Semitic than any other people.

Holocaust denier David Irving (photo credit: public domain via wikipedia)

Furthermore, at its conferences, the IHR has hosted the prominent British Holocaust-denier David Irving.

The director of the IHR, Mark Weber, took issue with the characterization of the organization as denying the Holocaust, telling the Times of Israel that was not accurate.

He pointed to a passage of its mission statement, which says the group does not deny the Holocaust and has no position on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.

Articles and reviews posted on the IHR website, and presentations given at IHR meetings and conferences, represent a wide range of views, it goes on. Each writer is responsible for what he or she writes or says. Accordingly, the IHR does not necessarily agree with the content or outlook of posted or distributed items.

Sobran, in defending this organization and its magazine The Journal for Historical Review, once wrote that, Charges that the IHR is anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi are belied by the Journals calm and reasonable tone, in contrast to the shrillness and violence of its enemies. And I do mean enemies.

He went on, Jewish groups, especially Zionist organizations, are forever reviling the IHR and trying to interfere with its activities.

In other writings, Sobran has not quite explicitly denied the Holocaust, but has said that questioning facts surrounding that historical event was not anti-Semitic.

Why on earth is it anti-Jewish to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not infact, intent on extermination? he asked.

Sobrans commentary provoked strong response from leading Holocaust historian and anti-Semitic expert Deborah Lipstadt, who took exception with The New York Times obituary for Sobran saying he took a skeptical line on the Holocaust.

Deborah Lipstadt (Emory University)

Mr. Sobran may not have been an unequivocal denier, she said, but he gave support and comfort to the worst of them.

Additionally, Sobran had in the past blamed US policies, particularly regarding its anti-terrorism measures after the September 11 attacks, as being dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States.

What began as a war on terror is morphing into a war to crush Israels enemies. And naturally so, he said. The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the US Governments Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United Staes. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they dont want the gentiles talking about it. Readers of Orwell will recognize the principle of Doublethink.

Manning did not respond to a request for comment.

The article has been updated to include response from Mark Weber, the director of the Institute for Historical Review.

See the rest here:
Trump official once called defender of Holocaust deniers a ‘national treasure’ – The Times of Israel

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Trump Appointee Praised Writer Who Defended Holocaust Deniers – Forward

C-SPAN

A pro-life activist whom President Trump appointed to run the Department of Health and Human Services family planning programs once praised a controversial writer who repeatedly defended Holocaust deniers and was once fired for writing columns that his own editor called anti-Semitic.

Teresa Manning, a new deputy assistant secretary at HHS, edited a book of pro-life essays in 2003, and moderated a panel discussion in Washington that year to promote it, Mother Jones magazine recounted on Monday. In her remarks, she praised Joseph Sobran, who was also speaking and had contributed to the book, saying that Sobran has been called the finest columnist of his generation as well as a national treasure. I wholeheartedly agree with both statements.

However, Manning could have been aware that a few months prior, Sobran had spoken at the annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review, a prominent Holocaust denial organization. In his remarks to the IHR, Sobran claimed that The only discernible duty of Jews, it seems, is to look out for Israel. He said that he was not himself a Holocaust denier, but, he asked, Why on earth is it anti-Jewish to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?

Because of this, The American Conservative magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan withdrew an offer for Sobran to write a column.

Sobrans extreme views should not have been a surprise to Manning or anyone else: In 1993, he was fired by National Review, the most prominent right-wing magazine of its time, for writing articles that editor William F. Buckley called contextually anti-Semitic.

Contact Aiden Pink at pink@forward.com or on Twitter, @aidenpink.

Visit link:
Trump Appointee Praised Writer Who Defended Holocaust Deniers – Forward

Fair Usage Law

August 21, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

EFF warns blocking neo-Nazi sites may threaten free speech – Engadget

The Daily Stormer has long espoused racist, anti-feminist and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial. GoDaddy only elected to drop its name registry recently, however, after it published an offensive article about Heather Heyer, who was killed during violent protests at Charlottesville. The site then shifted to Google’s hosting service, which also quickly banned it. Both companies said the site violated their terms of service by inciting violence.

In its criticism of those companies, the EFF said a “telling quote” about the situation came when Cloudfare — a service used by Stormer not for hosting, but to protect it against DDoS attacks — also dropped it. “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided that someone shouldn’t be allowed on the internet,” Cloudflare’s CEO said.

The EFF acknowledged that the “situation is deeply fraught” legally and otherwise. “All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country,” the EFF wrote. “But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with.”

We must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with

Like the EFF, the ACLU often stands up for hate groups that no one else will defend, but its own members have criticized its defense of Charlottesville protesters. “I am deeply disturbed by the ACLU’s decision to oppose local officials in Virginia who sought not to prevent the recent Charlottesville rally but to locate it in a place that would make it easier to keep all in attendance safe,” wrote one anonymous ACLU member.

Despite the EFF’s first amendment critiques, the list of businesses that have shut out The Daily Stormer and other fascist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi sites from funding and promotion is getting large. Mastercard, Visa, American Express and PayPal have cut off payments, and music services including Spotify, Google and Deezer have vowed to remove music from hate-espousing bands.

All of those businesses operate internationally, but the EFF’s argument is based on the US First Amendment rules. Those allow just about any speech, as long as it doesn’t present a “clear and present danger.” However hate speech laws are much tougher in countries like France, Austria, Germany and Canada — Holocaust denial, for instance, is illegal in 14 nations.

View original post here:
EFF warns blocking neo-Nazi sites may threaten free speech – Engadget

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

How the American right co-opted the idea of free speech – Quartz

The denial of first amendment rightsled to the political violence that we saw yesterday. That was how Jason Kessler, who organized last weekends far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, explained the actions of an extremist who rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. Like many on the far right, Kessler was claiming that displays of hate needed to be protected as free speechor else.

The US constitutions first amendment protects free speech much more strongly than in most democraciesa German-style law against holocaust denial would never stand in the US, for exampleand Americans support the right to say offensive things more strongly than other nations, a Pew survey found last year. But for a long time, free speech was a core concern of the left in America, not the right.

When the National Review [a leading conservative magazine] was first published in the 1950s, the vast majority of articles addressing free speech and the first amendment were critical of free expression and its proponents, says Wayne Batchis, a professor at the University of Delaware and author of The Rights First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism. Today, review of its contents reveals the precise opposite.

What prompted the shift, Batchis says, was the rise of a concept that quickly became a favorite target of the right: political correctness. As Moira Weigel wrote in The Guardian last year, the concept rose to fame in the late 1980s. After existing in leftist circles as a humorous label for excessive liberal orthodoxy, it was co-opted by the right and framed as a form of limitation of free speech.

In 1990, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein (paywall) used political correctness to refer to what he perceived as a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism. In a span of only a few months, stories about political correctness (some even deeming it a form of fascism) became commonplace in columns and on magazine covers. Before the 1990s, Weigel reports, the term was hardly ever used in the media; in 1992, it was used 6,000 times.

The idea became a centerpiece of right-wing theory, eventually leading to the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark.

But fighting political correctness wasnt the only thing that encouraged conservatives to embrace free speech. Money was also an incentive. Over the past decade the party has increasingly opposed any form of campaign-finance regulation, arguing that political donations are a form of free speech. Its reward came in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which allowed companies and trade unions to give unlimited donations to political causes. Liberals commonly oppose this view on the grounds, Batchis says, that spending money should not be treated as a form of speech.

In the event, both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from that ruling. Indeed, in last years election, Hillary Clinton raised $218 million from super PACS, the fundraising organizations that sprang up in the wake of Citizens Unitednearly three times as much as Donald Trump. During the primaries, though, the candidates for the Republican nomination collectively raised close to $400 million (paywall) from super PACs.

Conservatives have supported freedom of speech more consistently than liberals, even when its speech that goes against their views, according to Batchis. My research does suggest that even on hot-button issues like patriotism and traditional morality, many on the right have moved in a more speech-protective direction, he says. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech that was seen as harmful to racial minorities and women, he says.

Still, there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Many liberals still hold to the ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition even in the face of hate speech, says Batchis, while moralistic conservatives have advocated limitations on free speech such a ban on flag burning.

In the wake of Charlottesville, the California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declared that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in protected free speech. And indeed, direct threats arent protected (pdf, pp. 3-4) by the first amendment. But to count as a threat, speech has to incite imminent lawless action, in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. That is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions.

Continue reading here:
How the American right co-opted the idea of free speech – Quartz

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 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.

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

Trump official once called defender of Holocaust deniers a ‘national treasure’ – The Times of Israel

WASHINGTON The person US President Donald Trump chose to lead federal family-planning programs once referred to a defender of Holocaust deniers as a national treasure. Teresa Manning, Trumps pick for deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services is known for her history as a fierce anti-abortion activist and former lobbyist with the National Right to Life Committee. She also has a history defending and praising Joe Sobran, a former columnist and editor for the conservative magazine National Review until its then editor William Buckley fired him for writings he considered contextually anti-Semitic. Mother Jones was first to report Mannings history with Sobran, who died in 2010. Joseph Sobran (Wike Media) During a January 2003 event promoting her book Back to The Drawing Board: The Future of the Pro-Life Movement, Manning introduced Sobran, who was a speaker, and said of him: He has been called the finest columnist of his generation as well as a national treasure. I wholeheartedly agree with both statements. In fact, it was Pat Buchanan, who himself has doubted the death toll of the Holocaust and who the Anti-Defamation League has called an unrepentant bigot, who was responsible for the former quote. During the years between Sobrans unceremonious 1993 departure from the National Review and Mannings introduction, he repeatedly defended an organization that denies the Holocaust while also churning out his own writings containing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Through columns and speeches, Sobran has spoken fondly of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), an organization best known for publishing articles and books denying the Holocaust and that scholars consider one of the leading vehicles for the international Holocaust denial movement. Teresa Manning (Screenshot/YouTube) The Southern Poverty Law Center refers to the IHR as a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek truth and accuracy in history, but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Indeed, one article published in the think-tanks magazine referred to Kristallnacht as quite extraordinary. The author, Ingrid Weckert, said it was a radical aberration from the normal pattern of daily life. The outburst was not in keeping with either the official National Socialist Jewish policy nor with the general German attitude towards the Jews. The Germans were no more anti-Semitic than any other people. Holocaust denier David Irving (photo credit: public domain via wikipedia) Furthermore, at its conferences, the IHR has hosted the prominent British Holocaust-denier David Irving. The director of the IHR, Mark Weber, took issue with the characterization of the organization as denying the Holocaust, telling the Times of Israel that was not accurate. He pointed to a passage of its mission statement, which says the group does not deny the Holocaust and has no position on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation. Articles and reviews posted on the IHR website, and presentations given at IHR meetings and conferences, represent a wide range of views, it goes on. Each writer is responsible for what he or she writes or says. Accordingly, the IHR does not necessarily agree with the content or outlook of posted or distributed items. Sobran, in defending this organization and its magazine The Journal for Historical Review, once wrote that, Charges that the IHR is anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi are belied by the Journals calm and reasonable tone, in contrast to the shrillness and violence of its enemies. And I do mean enemies. He went on, Jewish groups, especially Zionist organizations, are forever reviling the IHR and trying to interfere with its activities. In other writings, Sobran has not quite explicitly denied the Holocaust, but has said that questioning facts surrounding that historical event was not anti-Semitic. Why on earth is it anti-Jewish to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not infact, intent on extermination? he asked. Sobrans commentary provoked strong response from leading Holocaust historian and anti-Semitic expert Deborah Lipstadt, who took exception with The New York Times obituary for Sobran saying he took a skeptical line on the Holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt (Emory University) Mr. Sobran may not have been an unequivocal denier, she said, but he gave support and comfort to the worst of them. Additionally, Sobran had in the past blamed US policies, particularly regarding its anti-terrorism measures after the September 11 attacks, as being dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. What began as a war on terror is morphing into a war to crush Israels enemies. And naturally so, he said. The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the US Governments Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United Staes. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they dont want the gentiles talking about it. Readers of Orwell will recognize the principle of Doublethink. Manning did not respond to a request for comment. The article has been updated to include response from Mark Weber, the director of the Institute for Historical Review.

Fair Usage Law

August 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Trump Appointee Praised Writer Who Defended Holocaust Deniers – Forward

C-SPAN A pro-life activist whom President Trump appointed to run the Department of Health and Human Services family planning programs once praised a controversial writer who repeatedly defended Holocaust deniers and was once fired for writing columns that his own editor called anti-Semitic. Teresa Manning, a new deputy assistant secretary at HHS, edited a book of pro-life essays in 2003, and moderated a panel discussion in Washington that year to promote it, Mother Jones magazine recounted on Monday. In her remarks, she praised Joseph Sobran, who was also speaking and had contributed to the book, saying that Sobran has been called the finest columnist of his generation as well as a national treasure. I wholeheartedly agree with both statements. However, Manning could have been aware that a few months prior, Sobran had spoken at the annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review, a prominent Holocaust denial organization. In his remarks to the IHR, Sobran claimed that The only discernible duty of Jews, it seems, is to look out for Israel. He said that he was not himself a Holocaust denier, but, he asked, Why on earth is it anti-Jewish to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Because of this, The American Conservative magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan withdrew an offer for Sobran to write a column. Sobrans extreme views should not have been a surprise to Manning or anyone else: In 1993, he was fired by National Review, the most prominent right-wing magazine of its time, for writing articles that editor William F. Buckley called contextually anti-Semitic. Contact Aiden Pink at pink@forward.com or on Twitter, @aidenpink.

Fair Usage Law

August 21, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

EFF warns blocking neo-Nazi sites may threaten free speech – Engadget

The Daily Stormer has long espoused racist, anti-feminist and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial. GoDaddy only elected to drop its name registry recently, however, after it published an offensive article about Heather Heyer, who was killed during violent protests at Charlottesville. The site then shifted to Google’s hosting service, which also quickly banned it. Both companies said the site violated their terms of service by inciting violence. In its criticism of those companies, the EFF said a “telling quote” about the situation came when Cloudfare — a service used by Stormer not for hosting, but to protect it against DDoS attacks — also dropped it. “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided that someone shouldn’t be allowed on the internet,” Cloudflare’s CEO said. The EFF acknowledged that the “situation is deeply fraught” legally and otherwise. “All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country,” the EFF wrote. “But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with.” We must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with Like the EFF, the ACLU often stands up for hate groups that no one else will defend, but its own members have criticized its defense of Charlottesville protesters. “I am deeply disturbed by the ACLU’s decision to oppose local officials in Virginia who sought not to prevent the recent Charlottesville rally but to locate it in a place that would make it easier to keep all in attendance safe,” wrote one anonymous ACLU member. Despite the EFF’s first amendment critiques, the list of businesses that have shut out The Daily Stormer and other fascist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi sites from funding and promotion is getting large. Mastercard, Visa, American Express and PayPal have cut off payments, and music services including Spotify, Google and Deezer have vowed to remove music from hate-espousing bands. All of those businesses operate internationally, but the EFF’s argument is based on the US First Amendment rules. Those allow just about any speech, as long as it doesn’t present a “clear and present danger.” However hate speech laws are much tougher in countries like France, Austria, Germany and Canada — Holocaust denial, for instance, is illegal in 14 nations.

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

How the American right co-opted the idea of free speech – Quartz

The denial of first amendment rightsled to the political violence that we saw yesterday. That was how Jason Kessler, who organized last weekends far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, explained the actions of an extremist who rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. Like many on the far right, Kessler was claiming that displays of hate needed to be protected as free speechor else. The US constitutions first amendment protects free speech much more strongly than in most democraciesa German-style law against holocaust denial would never stand in the US, for exampleand Americans support the right to say offensive things more strongly than other nations, a Pew survey found last year. But for a long time, free speech was a core concern of the left in America, not the right. When the National Review [a leading conservative magazine] was first published in the 1950s, the vast majority of articles addressing free speech and the first amendment were critical of free expression and its proponents, says Wayne Batchis, a professor at the University of Delaware and author of The Rights First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism. Today, review of its contents reveals the precise opposite. What prompted the shift, Batchis says, was the rise of a concept that quickly became a favorite target of the right: political correctness. As Moira Weigel wrote in The Guardian last year, the concept rose to fame in the late 1980s. After existing in leftist circles as a humorous label for excessive liberal orthodoxy, it was co-opted by the right and framed as a form of limitation of free speech. In 1990, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein (paywall) used political correctness to refer to what he perceived as a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism. In a span of only a few months, stories about political correctness (some even deeming it a form of fascism) became commonplace in columns and on magazine covers. Before the 1990s, Weigel reports, the term was hardly ever used in the media; in 1992, it was used 6,000 times. The idea became a centerpiece of right-wing theory, eventually leading to the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark. But fighting political correctness wasnt the only thing that encouraged conservatives to embrace free speech. Money was also an incentive. Over the past decade the party has increasingly opposed any form of campaign-finance regulation, arguing that political donations are a form of free speech. Its reward came in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which allowed companies and trade unions to give unlimited donations to political causes. Liberals commonly oppose this view on the grounds, Batchis says, that spending money should not be treated as a form of speech. In the event, both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from that ruling. Indeed, in last years election, Hillary Clinton raised $218 million from super PACS, the fundraising organizations that sprang up in the wake of Citizens Unitednearly three times as much as Donald Trump. During the primaries, though, the candidates for the Republican nomination collectively raised close to $400 million (paywall) from super PACs. Conservatives have supported freedom of speech more consistently than liberals, even when its speech that goes against their views, according to Batchis. My research does suggest that even on hot-button issues like patriotism and traditional morality, many on the right have moved in a more speech-protective direction, he says. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech that was seen as harmful to racial minorities and women, he says. Still, there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Many liberals still hold to the ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition even in the face of hate speech, says Batchis, while moralistic conservatives have advocated limitations on free speech such a ban on flag burning. In the wake of Charlottesville, the California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declared that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in protected free speech. And indeed, direct threats arent protected (pdf, pp. 3-4) by the first amendment. But to count as a threat, speech has to incite imminent lawless action, in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. That is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions.

Fair Usage Law

August 18, 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


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."