Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

Iran_ Holocaust denial conference underway1070 – Video



Iran_ Holocaust denial conference underway1070

By: Lynne Lograsso

Read the original:
Iran_ Holocaust denial conference underway1070 – Video

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Abbas the Moderate | FrontPage Magazine

Holocaust denial is not the sort of thing one normally associates with moderation. It is associated with unbridled hatred, ignorance, irrationality and xenophobia. Deniers usually fall into two groupings. There are the crass boors who spew forth whatever refuse enters their vapid minds without even the slightest attempt to provide empirical data to substantiate their odious views. And then there are the more sophisticated types whose denials are generally accompanied by fabricated evidence and couched in terms of scholarly pursuit and historical review.

The rantings of Dr. IssamSissalem, a Palestinian academic who claimed on Palestinian Authority TV that Auschwitz and other death camps merely served as disinfection facilities,provides a clear example of the former grouping. The unelected, autocratic president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas provides a good example of the latter.

In the 1980s Abbas authored a Ph.D. thesis in which he referred to the systematic murder of 6 million Jews as a fantastic lie and claimed that the actual death toll was barely a sixth of that amount and that in any event, their murder was provoked by the Zionist movement. He further alleged that gas chambers were never utilized to murder Jews.

So there you have it. The leader of the Palestinian Authority shares the same beliefs and values as the likes of former Islamic Republic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former grand wizard, David Duke. This is the man that Israel is expected to trust with signed treaties. This is the man that Israel is expected to cede its ancestral land to. And this is the man entrusted by John Kerry to end Palestinian incitement.

It is beyond astonishing that neither the EUs Catherine Ashtonnor John Kerry haveaddressed the disconcerting issue of Holocaust denial with Abbas. The matter is even more pressing when one considers that Holocaust denial is pervasive among Palestinians due to systematic efforts by Palestinian Authority officials (often facilitated by Western financing) to promote incitement and hatred. Even more disturbing is the fact that Abbas, who is hailed as a moderate by Ashton and Kerry, continues to spew forth repugnant and highly revisionist views that are incongruent with peace-making and coexistence.

In a telling op-ed piece for the New York Times, Abbas bemoans the loss of his purported homeland butforgets to mention the inconvenient truth that it was the Palestinian Arabs who rejected partition and who fired the first shots of aggression.He also reaches the zenith of mendacity when he claims that Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened.

The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs left on their own volition with the belief that they would return once Arab forces were triumphant. That of course never materialized because despite all odds, it was the Jews who were the victors. It is also noteworthy that among the first of the Palestinians to flee were the leaders and more affluent, who had the means to do so. This flight further demoralized the Palestinian Arab peasantry and middleclass and adversely affected the Palestinian economy, leading to further flight by the masses.

Abbas stubborn adherence to a false and misleading narrative and continued refusal to accept responsibility and to acknowledge even the slightest culpability for the current Palestinian predicament is indicative of one who will never relinquish his claims to the whole. Abbas is intent on using the peace process as a tactic with the overall strategic goal of eliminating Israel. Should Israel ever decide to succumb to John Kerrys pressure and relinquish Judea & Samaria, Abbas would be one step closer in attaining this pernicious objective.

Abbas has in the past expressed deep admiration for Haj Amin el-Husseini, an evil and deeply anti-Semitic character whose past Nazi connections are well documented. He has provided cash and cushy government jobs to murderers convicted of the most barbaric crimes, courtesy of the American and EU taxpayer. But most telling of all was an incident which occurred last year and represents one of the clearest examples yet of why Abbas cannot be trusted.

Abbas was present and seated in the front row during a sermon given by PA Religious Endowments Minister, Mahmoud al-Habbash. Habbashcompared the current negotiations with Israel to a medieval pact signed between Muhammad and his rivals, the Quraysh, which Muhammad subsequently violated once achieving military parity. Abbas offered no rebuke or condemnation of his minister. On the contrary, the views expressed by Habbash are consistent with those of his boss.

See the original post:
Abbas the Moderate | FrontPage Magazine

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

What could be worse than Holocaust denial? | Holocaust …

The Holocaust became less an historic atrocity to be understood and more a matter of religious orthodoxy to be learnt by rote. This put it beyond question, something that secular authorities were no more prepared to debate than the pope might be to haggle over the truth of transubstantiation. The notion of banning (either explicitly or implicitly) those who dissent from this orthodoxy, the Holocaust deniers, followed logically from its elevation into pseudo-theology.

Some of us who entirely accept the historical truths of the Nazi Holocaust and the deaths of six million Jews nevertheless oppose bans and laws against Holocaust denial on two key grounds, one principled and one more practical. First, because we believe in freedom of speech as a fundamental political principle that has virtue in and of itself, regardless of the content of what is said. And second because, in practice, trying to deal with a political issue such as Holocaust denial through bans can only make the problem worse, by encouraging cynicism and giving credence to conspiracy theories.

Whether some like it or not, treating Holocaust denial as a crime is a straightforward free-speech issue. It is a measure of how far the historic principle of freedom of speech has fallen out of fashion that so many should now believe that the way to deal with obnoxious opinion is through the law rather than argument. Thus a UK government and European Commission expert on anti-Semitism argues that Jews will be best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred. Such one-eyed experts apparently see no contradiction in promiscuously banning words and prosecuting ideas in the name of tolerance and democracy.

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of a civilised society, without which no other liberties that we care about would be possible. It is also an indivisible right that needs to be defended for all or surrendered. To have any real meaning, free speech must also extend to those the mainstream deems irresponsible or unpalatable be that the Greek philosopher Socrates (put to death for talking out of turn in Ancient Athens), the Italian astronomer Galileo (convicted of heresy by the Inquisition for suggesting that the Earth moves around the Sun), or the French funny man Dieudonn (just banned from Britain for telling offensive anti-Semitic jokes).

Indeed, opposing the criminalisation of Holocaust denial is an acid test for those who believe in the principle of free speech. After all, it is only extreme ideas that need defending against bans the mainstream can look after itself. That should not imply any sort of support or sympathy for the putrid historical lies of the Holocaust deniers. It is instead in the spirit of the famous anti-fascist George Orwells argument, that if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not what to hear.

So much for the principle. The practical arguments against bans on Holocaust deniers are just as important today. The best way to confront bad ideas and distortions is always through debate and exposure. To seek to repress them instead can only inhibit the search for clarity and truth. Attempting a bureaucratic solution to profound political and social problems through bans and proscriptions always makes matters worse. In the case of Holocaust denial, the practical consequences can be dangerously far-reaching.

In recent decades, the authorities across Europe and America have sought to erect a ring-fence around the question of the Holocaust, treating it as a religious relic that cannot be touched, re-examined or in any way disrespected without calling down wrath from above. The Holocaust has been used as an all-purpose instrument of moral instruction, to drum into people especially young people the threat of Evil. Under New Labour, the Holocaust became the only historical event to enjoy compulsory status in the national schools curriculum. A generation of British schoolchildren have been instructed to learn that playground bullying can be the first step on the return march to the death camps.

A perverse effect of this constant one-note public chorus about the lessons of the Holocaust has been to invite a more grumbling response beneath the surface. There are only so many times teenagers can be told to read aloud from Anne Franks diary like a religious text, or to imagine what it was like to be a child in Auschwitz (good luck with that!), before the feeling grows that they are having the Holocaust shoved down their throats. And that creates fertile ground for cynicism to flourish.

When people are denied the chance seriously to discuss or question an official orthodoxy in critical fashion, it is likely to prompt other unwanted questions. Such as, Why do they keep going on about this? and What have they got to hide?. Like unwilling churchgoers, many will go through the act and pay lip service to the sermons about the Holocaust, while at the same time adapting to a creeping culture of cynicism.

In trying to protect the truth about the Holocaust from the perfidies of the deniers through administrative and even authoritarian measures, governments and judges risk giving credence to their execrable conspiracy theories. Those who live by the ban can perish by it also.

Originally posted here:
What could be worse than Holocaust denial? | Holocaust …

Fair Usage Law

February 6, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

International holocaust day 2014: Holocaust denial …

When lies become reliable, is the time for us to worry.

How positive you are that the Holocaust really occurred? That it is not one big fraud planned by the US and its allies? That the pictures that you see of piles of dead bodies are not just the bodies of Jews who fled to Europe from communist Russia and died from typhus disease? That the use of Zyklon B was not an attempt made by the Germans to stop the spread of this terrible disease? That when high-ranked Nazis admitted to committing terrible crimes against minorities and seeking to kill all Jews after they got arrested, werent forced to do so by the victors of the war? What would you say to a Holocaust survivors testimony that confirms that information? Where she explains that the reason the Nazis cut their hair was lice epidemic, and that they were lucky to sleep in cramped bunk beds that the Nazis managed to arrange for them, because the alternative was sleeping outside in the cold.

All of the above is part of a documentary named: Adolf Hitler the greatest story never told. This three-hour long film is merely a small part of a growing list of conspiracy-based films proving the Holocaust never existed. Accompanied by an American narration and dramatic music, those films provide answers to every doubt that may arise while watching. They show documented proof to every single claim they make and are very convincing. They are also being sold on mainstream websites, such as Amazon, which provides them with another approval of authenticity.

The technology of the 21st century allows haters to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust with a simple editing program and some viral push in social networks. By disguising lies as solid facts, creators of those films fool thousands of unaware people every day. Lies that are easy for us to detect can seem as reliable facts to the many people who are not surrounded by the memory of the Holocaust.

Up until recently, those Holocaust deniers, wishing to spread hate throughout the world, had very little impact while facing Holocaust survivors and European citizens from those dark times. With time, though, the number of witnesses is decreasing rapidly. If I heard a testimony from a Holocaust survivor every year from first to 12th grade, my nine year-old cousin will not have that privilege. She will have to rely on the stories being told to her by her teachers and family members. She will also have to watch the films and documentaries that fill the entire broadcast schedule of the Israeli television during the Holocaust Memorial Day. She will have to visit Poland in the 11th grade with her class, as part of the ongoing national program. She will have to ask questions, be interested and remember.

Soon it will be entirely up to us, the second and third generation, to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive so that history could never repeat itself. Once the witnesses all rest in peace, all we will have left are stories, pictures and items that can be easily be claimed as fake. It will be us against them, and we must continue being the majority. Denying the Holocaust is now as easy as proving it occurred, and social networks are still unable to detect lies.

In recent years, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis are carefully stepping out of the shadows and managing to slowly sweep groups of fans after them. Making people believe they are not the ones to blame for their own troubles is easy, especially in times of financial struggle. Placing the blame on someone else is easier. Now, we can still fight them virtually, forcing them back into the darkness. We can still write to Amazon and ask them to stop working with contributors poisoning peoples minds with lies. We can still counter those lies online. We can no longer sit aside with confidence that it will never happen again, the time to act is now.

We welcome your feedback.

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

See the original post here:
International holocaust day 2014: Holocaust denial …

Fair Usage Law

February 6, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

George Galloway – Laws Against Holocaust Denial – Video



George Galloway – Laws Against Holocaust Denial
GOT ANY OLD RADIO CLIPS ?? Message me and i'll upload. FREE online podcast available. Click here – http://tiny.cc/v0x03.

By: dpro73

See the original post:
George Galloway – Laws Against Holocaust Denial – Video

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial and Distortion United States …

What is Holocaust denial and distortion?

Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Key denial assertions are: that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed.

A newer trend is the distortion of the facts of the Holocaust. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration; the deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy; and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.

Distinct from denial and distortion is misuse of the Holocaust. Misuse occurs when aspects of the Holocaust are compared to events, situations, or people where there is no genocide or genocidal intent. Examples of Holocaust misuse include: claiming that Israeli-government actions are equivalent to those of the Nazis; equating the treatment of animals with the treatment of Jews and other victims during the Holocaust; labeling political opponents as Nazis; or misusing the terminology of the Holocaust to assert that particular actions are the same as actions undertaken by the Nazis.

Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse all undermine the understanding of history. Denial and distortion of the Holocaust almost always reflect antisemitism.

The Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. Holocaust denial and distortion are generally motivated by hatred of Jews, and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests. This view perpetuates long-standing antisemitic stereotypes by accusing Jews of conspiracy and world domination, hateful charges that were instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust.

Like all forms of propaganda, Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse are strategies to achieve objectives, including:

Holocaust denial and distortion are motivated by agendas that are neither about the Holocaust nor about greater understanding of a documented historical event. Some Holocaust deniers, so-called revisionists, claim to be authentic scholars, when instead they manipulate facts to support a particular ideological position. Hiding their antisemitic intent under the guise of free speech, they claim to offer an alternate version of Holocaust history. Because legitimate scholars do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, Holocaust denial plays no role in legitimate historical debate. To evaluate if a claim falls within the spectrum of Holocaust denial and distortion, consider the following:

The United States Constitution ensures freedom of speech. Therefore, in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. These different legal frameworks impede a comprehensive global approach to combating Holocaust denial.

The Internetbecause of its ease of access and dissemination, seeming anonymity, and perceived authorityis now the chief conduit of Holocaust denial.

Excerpt from:
Holocaust Denial and Distortion United States …

Fair Usage Law

January 28, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Europe not doing enough to fight Holocaust denial: EU

(BRUSSELS) – More than a dozen European Union nations have failed to fully criminalise the denial of crimes against humanity and war crimes, the EU’s executive said on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Though the bloc agreed in 2008 to outlaw the denial, condonement or gross trivialisation of such crimes, around half of its 28 members have failed to write these rules into their domestic legislation, the European Commission said.

“Today, we have achieved peace between nations in the European Union,” said the bloc’s Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding.

“Yet another challenge remains: to continue the quest for tolerance. Nobody should ever have to experience hate speech or hate crime.”

Reding said she was urging all EU states to swiftly transpose EU rules into their national laws.

Countries not in line with the 2008 rules by December 1 this year could face judicial action.

The Commission said 13 countries — Austria, Belgium, Britain, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden — have no criminal law provisions governing the public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

And 15 nations — Bulgaria, Britain, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden — have no specific provisions criminalising public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity by major war criminals of the European Axis countries.

In a separate statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Holocaust Remembrance Day was an occasion “to remind us all of the need to continue fighting prejudice and racism in our own time.”

“We must remain vigilant against the dangers of hate speech and redouble our commitment to prevent any form of intolerance,” she added.

Read this article:
Europe not doing enough to fight Holocaust denial: EU

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

The Holocaust Denial Renactment – Video



The Holocaust Denial Renactment
School project for conspiracy theories.

By: Tailz811

Read more:
The Holocaust Denial Renactment – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Morning Star :: Theresa May should take a stand

Vona’s Jobbik party has a consistent record of Holocaust denial

Home Secretary Theresa May was guest of honour at the Board of Deputies of British Jews annual dinner last November, telling those present that the coalition government would “not tolerate anti-semitism in any form.”

She has the opportunity to make good on that pledge today by slapping a ban on Hungarian fascist leader Gabor Vona’s planned visit to Britain this weekend.

Vona’s Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary) party has a consistent record of Holocaust denial and hatred towards Jews and Roma who were the principal targets of nazi genocide.

A Budapest government ban on Jobbik’s Hungarian Guard movement paramilitary wing was confirmed in December by the European Court of Human Rights, ruling that its marches were intended to induce fear and lay the basis for an “essentially racist” legal order.

The ECHR also highlighted the Hungarian judgement that “the movement’s activities and manifestations were based on racial conflict between Hungarian majority and Roma minority,” which reflects fascist involvement in several murders of Roma.

However, despite ordering disbandment of the Hungarian Guard, the conservative government in Budapest has been half-hearted at best in its efforts to counter anti-semitism.

Hungarian Jews have threatened to boycott the official Holocaust memorial events this weekend in protest at its trivialisation by the Veritas historical institute, set up by the government in November.

Jewish umbrella body Mazsihisz demanded the removal of its director Sandor Szakaly, who recently referred to the 1941 removal of 18,000 Jewish refugees to the Kamenets-Podolsk death camp in Ukraine as “a police action against aliens.”

Jobbik leaders have been able to get away with calls for a special police force to deal with “Gypsy crime” and protests against the World Jewish Congress being held in Budapest, dubbing the delegates “Israeli conquerors” who should “look for another country in the world because Hungary is not for sale.”

Read more:
Morning Star :: Theresa May should take a stand

Fair Usage Law

January 24, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Iran_ Holocaust denial conference underway1070 – Video




Iran_ Holocaust denial conference underway1070 By: Lynne Lograsso

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Abbas the Moderate | FrontPage Magazine

Holocaust denial is not the sort of thing one normally associates with moderation. It is associated with unbridled hatred, ignorance, irrationality and xenophobia. Deniers usually fall into two groupings. There are the crass boors who spew forth whatever refuse enters their vapid minds without even the slightest attempt to provide empirical data to substantiate their odious views. And then there are the more sophisticated types whose denials are generally accompanied by fabricated evidence and couched in terms of scholarly pursuit and historical review. The rantings of Dr. IssamSissalem, a Palestinian academic who claimed on Palestinian Authority TV that Auschwitz and other death camps merely served as disinfection facilities,provides a clear example of the former grouping. The unelected, autocratic president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas provides a good example of the latter. In the 1980s Abbas authored a Ph.D. thesis in which he referred to the systematic murder of 6 million Jews as a fantastic lie and claimed that the actual death toll was barely a sixth of that amount and that in any event, their murder was provoked by the Zionist movement. He further alleged that gas chambers were never utilized to murder Jews. So there you have it. The leader of the Palestinian Authority shares the same beliefs and values as the likes of former Islamic Republic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former grand wizard, David Duke. This is the man that Israel is expected to trust with signed treaties. This is the man that Israel is expected to cede its ancestral land to. And this is the man entrusted by John Kerry to end Palestinian incitement. It is beyond astonishing that neither the EUs Catherine Ashtonnor John Kerry haveaddressed the disconcerting issue of Holocaust denial with Abbas. The matter is even more pressing when one considers that Holocaust denial is pervasive among Palestinians due to systematic efforts by Palestinian Authority officials (often facilitated by Western financing) to promote incitement and hatred. Even more disturbing is the fact that Abbas, who is hailed as a moderate by Ashton and Kerry, continues to spew forth repugnant and highly revisionist views that are incongruent with peace-making and coexistence. In a telling op-ed piece for the New York Times, Abbas bemoans the loss of his purported homeland butforgets to mention the inconvenient truth that it was the Palestinian Arabs who rejected partition and who fired the first shots of aggression.He also reaches the zenith of mendacity when he claims that Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs left on their own volition with the belief that they would return once Arab forces were triumphant. That of course never materialized because despite all odds, it was the Jews who were the victors. It is also noteworthy that among the first of the Palestinians to flee were the leaders and more affluent, who had the means to do so. This flight further demoralized the Palestinian Arab peasantry and middleclass and adversely affected the Palestinian economy, leading to further flight by the masses. Abbas stubborn adherence to a false and misleading narrative and continued refusal to accept responsibility and to acknowledge even the slightest culpability for the current Palestinian predicament is indicative of one who will never relinquish his claims to the whole. Abbas is intent on using the peace process as a tactic with the overall strategic goal of eliminating Israel. Should Israel ever decide to succumb to John Kerrys pressure and relinquish Judea & Samaria, Abbas would be one step closer in attaining this pernicious objective. Abbas has in the past expressed deep admiration for Haj Amin el-Husseini, an evil and deeply anti-Semitic character whose past Nazi connections are well documented. He has provided cash and cushy government jobs to murderers convicted of the most barbaric crimes, courtesy of the American and EU taxpayer. But most telling of all was an incident which occurred last year and represents one of the clearest examples yet of why Abbas cannot be trusted. Abbas was present and seated in the front row during a sermon given by PA Religious Endowments Minister, Mahmoud al-Habbash. Habbashcompared the current negotiations with Israel to a medieval pact signed between Muhammad and his rivals, the Quraysh, which Muhammad subsequently violated once achieving military parity. Abbas offered no rebuke or condemnation of his minister. On the contrary, the views expressed by Habbash are consistent with those of his boss.

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

What could be worse than Holocaust denial? | Holocaust …

The Holocaust became less an historic atrocity to be understood and more a matter of religious orthodoxy to be learnt by rote. This put it beyond question, something that secular authorities were no more prepared to debate than the pope might be to haggle over the truth of transubstantiation. The notion of banning (either explicitly or implicitly) those who dissent from this orthodoxy, the Holocaust deniers, followed logically from its elevation into pseudo-theology. Some of us who entirely accept the historical truths of the Nazi Holocaust and the deaths of six million Jews nevertheless oppose bans and laws against Holocaust denial on two key grounds, one principled and one more practical. First, because we believe in freedom of speech as a fundamental political principle that has virtue in and of itself, regardless of the content of what is said. And second because, in practice, trying to deal with a political issue such as Holocaust denial through bans can only make the problem worse, by encouraging cynicism and giving credence to conspiracy theories. Whether some like it or not, treating Holocaust denial as a crime is a straightforward free-speech issue. It is a measure of how far the historic principle of freedom of speech has fallen out of fashion that so many should now believe that the way to deal with obnoxious opinion is through the law rather than argument. Thus a UK government and European Commission expert on anti-Semitism argues that Jews will be best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred. Such one-eyed experts apparently see no contradiction in promiscuously banning words and prosecuting ideas in the name of tolerance and democracy. Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of a civilised society, without which no other liberties that we care about would be possible. It is also an indivisible right that needs to be defended for all or surrendered. To have any real meaning, free speech must also extend to those the mainstream deems irresponsible or unpalatable be that the Greek philosopher Socrates (put to death for talking out of turn in Ancient Athens), the Italian astronomer Galileo (convicted of heresy by the Inquisition for suggesting that the Earth moves around the Sun), or the French funny man Dieudonn (just banned from Britain for telling offensive anti-Semitic jokes). Indeed, opposing the criminalisation of Holocaust denial is an acid test for those who believe in the principle of free speech. After all, it is only extreme ideas that need defending against bans the mainstream can look after itself. That should not imply any sort of support or sympathy for the putrid historical lies of the Holocaust deniers. It is instead in the spirit of the famous anti-fascist George Orwells argument, that if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not what to hear. So much for the principle. The practical arguments against bans on Holocaust deniers are just as important today. The best way to confront bad ideas and distortions is always through debate and exposure. To seek to repress them instead can only inhibit the search for clarity and truth. Attempting a bureaucratic solution to profound political and social problems through bans and proscriptions always makes matters worse. In the case of Holocaust denial, the practical consequences can be dangerously far-reaching. In recent decades, the authorities across Europe and America have sought to erect a ring-fence around the question of the Holocaust, treating it as a religious relic that cannot be touched, re-examined or in any way disrespected without calling down wrath from above. The Holocaust has been used as an all-purpose instrument of moral instruction, to drum into people especially young people the threat of Evil. Under New Labour, the Holocaust became the only historical event to enjoy compulsory status in the national schools curriculum. A generation of British schoolchildren have been instructed to learn that playground bullying can be the first step on the return march to the death camps. A perverse effect of this constant one-note public chorus about the lessons of the Holocaust has been to invite a more grumbling response beneath the surface. There are only so many times teenagers can be told to read aloud from Anne Franks diary like a religious text, or to imagine what it was like to be a child in Auschwitz (good luck with that!), before the feeling grows that they are having the Holocaust shoved down their throats. And that creates fertile ground for cynicism to flourish. When people are denied the chance seriously to discuss or question an official orthodoxy in critical fashion, it is likely to prompt other unwanted questions. Such as, Why do they keep going on about this? and What have they got to hide?. Like unwilling churchgoers, many will go through the act and pay lip service to the sermons about the Holocaust, while at the same time adapting to a creeping culture of cynicism. In trying to protect the truth about the Holocaust from the perfidies of the deniers through administrative and even authoritarian measures, governments and judges risk giving credence to their execrable conspiracy theories. Those who live by the ban can perish by it also.

Fair Usage Law

February 6, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

International holocaust day 2014: Holocaust denial …

When lies become reliable, is the time for us to worry. How positive you are that the Holocaust really occurred? That it is not one big fraud planned by the US and its allies? That the pictures that you see of piles of dead bodies are not just the bodies of Jews who fled to Europe from communist Russia and died from typhus disease? That the use of Zyklon B was not an attempt made by the Germans to stop the spread of this terrible disease? That when high-ranked Nazis admitted to committing terrible crimes against minorities and seeking to kill all Jews after they got arrested, werent forced to do so by the victors of the war? What would you say to a Holocaust survivors testimony that confirms that information? Where she explains that the reason the Nazis cut their hair was lice epidemic, and that they were lucky to sleep in cramped bunk beds that the Nazis managed to arrange for them, because the alternative was sleeping outside in the cold. All of the above is part of a documentary named: Adolf Hitler the greatest story never told. This three-hour long film is merely a small part of a growing list of conspiracy-based films proving the Holocaust never existed. Accompanied by an American narration and dramatic music, those films provide answers to every doubt that may arise while watching. They show documented proof to every single claim they make and are very convincing. They are also being sold on mainstream websites, such as Amazon, which provides them with another approval of authenticity. The technology of the 21st century allows haters to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust with a simple editing program and some viral push in social networks. By disguising lies as solid facts, creators of those films fool thousands of unaware people every day. Lies that are easy for us to detect can seem as reliable facts to the many people who are not surrounded by the memory of the Holocaust. Up until recently, those Holocaust deniers, wishing to spread hate throughout the world, had very little impact while facing Holocaust survivors and European citizens from those dark times. With time, though, the number of witnesses is decreasing rapidly. If I heard a testimony from a Holocaust survivor every year from first to 12th grade, my nine year-old cousin will not have that privilege. She will have to rely on the stories being told to her by her teachers and family members. She will also have to watch the films and documentaries that fill the entire broadcast schedule of the Israeli television during the Holocaust Memorial Day. She will have to visit Poland in the 11th grade with her class, as part of the ongoing national program. She will have to ask questions, be interested and remember. Soon it will be entirely up to us, the second and third generation, to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive so that history could never repeat itself. Once the witnesses all rest in peace, all we will have left are stories, pictures and items that can be easily be claimed as fake. It will be us against them, and we must continue being the majority. Denying the Holocaust is now as easy as proving it occurred, and social networks are still unable to detect lies. In recent years, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis are carefully stepping out of the shadows and managing to slowly sweep groups of fans after them. Making people believe they are not the ones to blame for their own troubles is easy, especially in times of financial struggle. Placing the blame on someone else is easier. Now, we can still fight them virtually, forcing them back into the darkness. We can still write to Amazon and ask them to stop working with contributors poisoning peoples minds with lies. We can still counter those lies online. We can no longer sit aside with confidence that it will never happen again, the time to act is now. We welcome your feedback. Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Fair Usage Law

February 6, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

George Galloway – Laws Against Holocaust Denial – Video




George Galloway – Laws Against Holocaust Denial GOT ANY OLD RADIO CLIPS ?? Message me and i'll upload. FREE online podcast available. Click here – http://tiny.cc/v0x03. By: dpro73

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial and Distortion United States …

What is Holocaust denial and distortion? Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Key denial assertions are: that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed. A newer trend is the distortion of the facts of the Holocaust. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration; the deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy; and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. Distinct from denial and distortion is misuse of the Holocaust. Misuse occurs when aspects of the Holocaust are compared to events, situations, or people where there is no genocide or genocidal intent. Examples of Holocaust misuse include: claiming that Israeli-government actions are equivalent to those of the Nazis; equating the treatment of animals with the treatment of Jews and other victims during the Holocaust; labeling political opponents as Nazis; or misusing the terminology of the Holocaust to assert that particular actions are the same as actions undertaken by the Nazis. Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse all undermine the understanding of history. Denial and distortion of the Holocaust almost always reflect antisemitism. The Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. Holocaust denial and distortion are generally motivated by hatred of Jews, and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests. This view perpetuates long-standing antisemitic stereotypes by accusing Jews of conspiracy and world domination, hateful charges that were instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust. Like all forms of propaganda, Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse are strategies to achieve objectives, including: Holocaust denial and distortion are motivated by agendas that are neither about the Holocaust nor about greater understanding of a documented historical event. Some Holocaust deniers, so-called revisionists, claim to be authentic scholars, when instead they manipulate facts to support a particular ideological position. Hiding their antisemitic intent under the guise of free speech, they claim to offer an alternate version of Holocaust history. Because legitimate scholars do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, Holocaust denial plays no role in legitimate historical debate. To evaluate if a claim falls within the spectrum of Holocaust denial and distortion, consider the following: The United States Constitution ensures freedom of speech. Therefore, in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. These different legal frameworks impede a comprehensive global approach to combating Holocaust denial. The Internetbecause of its ease of access and dissemination, seeming anonymity, and perceived authorityis now the chief conduit of Holocaust denial.

Fair Usage Law

January 28, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Europe not doing enough to fight Holocaust denial: EU

(BRUSSELS) – More than a dozen European Union nations have failed to fully criminalise the denial of crimes against humanity and war crimes, the EU’s executive said on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Though the bloc agreed in 2008 to outlaw the denial, condonement or gross trivialisation of such crimes, around half of its 28 members have failed to write these rules into their domestic legislation, the European Commission said. “Today, we have achieved peace between nations in the European Union,” said the bloc’s Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding. “Yet another challenge remains: to continue the quest for tolerance. Nobody should ever have to experience hate speech or hate crime.” Reding said she was urging all EU states to swiftly transpose EU rules into their national laws. Countries not in line with the 2008 rules by December 1 this year could face judicial action. The Commission said 13 countries — Austria, Belgium, Britain, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden — have no criminal law provisions governing the public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. And 15 nations — Bulgaria, Britain, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden — have no specific provisions criminalising public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity by major war criminals of the European Axis countries. In a separate statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Holocaust Remembrance Day was an occasion “to remind us all of the need to continue fighting prejudice and racism in our own time.” “We must remain vigilant against the dangers of hate speech and redouble our commitment to prevent any form of intolerance,” she added.

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

The Holocaust Denial Renactment – Video




The Holocaust Denial Renactment School project for conspiracy theories. By: Tailz811

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2014   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Morning Star :: Theresa May should take a stand

Vona’s Jobbik party has a consistent record of Holocaust denial Home Secretary Theresa May was guest of honour at the Board of Deputies of British Jews annual dinner last November, telling those present that the coalition government would “not tolerate anti-semitism in any form.” She has the opportunity to make good on that pledge today by slapping a ban on Hungarian fascist leader Gabor Vona’s planned visit to Britain this weekend. Vona’s Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary) party has a consistent record of Holocaust denial and hatred towards Jews and Roma who were the principal targets of nazi genocide. A Budapest government ban on Jobbik’s Hungarian Guard movement paramilitary wing was confirmed in December by the European Court of Human Rights, ruling that its marches were intended to induce fear and lay the basis for an “essentially racist” legal order. The ECHR also highlighted the Hungarian judgement that “the movement’s activities and manifestations were based on racial conflict between Hungarian majority and Roma minority,” which reflects fascist involvement in several murders of Roma. However, despite ordering disbandment of the Hungarian Guard, the conservative government in Budapest has been half-hearted at best in its efforts to counter anti-semitism. Hungarian Jews have threatened to boycott the official Holocaust memorial events this weekend in protest at its trivialisation by the Veritas historical institute, set up by the government in November. Jewish umbrella body Mazsihisz demanded the removal of its director Sandor Szakaly, who recently referred to the 1941 removal of 18,000 Jewish refugees to the Kamenets-Podolsk death camp in Ukraine as “a police action against aliens.” Jobbik leaders have been able to get away with calls for a special police force to deal with “Gypsy crime” and protests against the World Jewish Congress being held in Budapest, dubbing the delegates “Israeli conquerors” who should “look for another country in the world because Hungary is not for sale.”

Fair Usage Law

January 24, 2014   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."