Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED …

By Kevin Barrett on March 8, 2017

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

So which books have been taken down?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Rudolfs books arein fact being removed see below

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

Listen to my radio interview with Gerard Menuhin.

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

The above list covers the revisionists I know anything about.

How about those who argue against them?

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

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

So here is the takeaway:

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

Dear Dr. Barrett:

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

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

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

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

Best regards

Germar Rudolf Production Manager

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

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

Hell just got a little more crowded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He wouldn’t. He didn’t.

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

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

They don’t. They won’t.

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

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

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

Also on HuffPost:

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

Fair Usage Law

August 14, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 9, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was released from prison in 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

University refuses to move books by Holocaust denier – The Times

Manchester University has come under fire for refusing to move works by David Irving from open display on library shelves or to label them as Holocaust denial literature.

In recent months, growing numbers of British universities, including Cambridge and University College London (UCL), have reclassified works by the controversial writer. They either moved them to closed access areas, or inserted disclaimers inside the books, following a campaign led by Dr Irene Lancaster, formerly a teaching fellow in Jewish history at Manchester University, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, now master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

Manchester University, however, has refused to move Irvings books to an area where students would have to ask to read them.

Last week, it also refused a request from

See the original post here:
University refuses to move books by Holocaust denier – The Times

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust denial ‘being fuelled by social media and could continue to rise in the UK’ – Express.co.uk

GETTY

Sir Peter Bazalgette, chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, said the horrifying stories of survivors remained incredibly powerful.

But he warned that Holocaust denial may well grow in the next 20 years, rather than diminish because of misleading posts on social media.

He said: A small number of MPs and peers, some of whom live locally, have understandably expressed concerns.

Getty Images

1 of 12

The infamous German inscription reads ‘Work Makes Free’ at the main gate of the Auschwitz I extermination camp.

We are confident that putting the memorial next to Parliament will improve the park amenity.

Sir Peter added: If you search for Holocaust denial youd be astonished at what people bring up.

“Theres a danger that the power of the internet reinforces mutual prejudices and its up to all of us to make sure Holocaust denial doesnt grow.

Speaking at the launch of a design competition for a new Holocaust Memorial to be sited next to the Houses of Parliament Sir Peter, 64, said the project underlines the importance of learning the lessons of history.

Here is the original post:
Holocaust denial ‘being fuelled by social media and could continue to rise in the UK’ – Express.co.uk

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

James O’Brien’s Worrying Theory On The Rise Of Holocaust Denial – LBC

2 August 2017, 14:13

James O’Brien: This Is Why Holocaust Denial Is On The Rise

00:01:15

A leading campaigner has warned Holocaust denial could rise in the next 20 years, and James OBrien has a theory why this is worryingly true.

Sir Peter Bazalgette, chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, believes Holocaust denial may well grow rather than diminish over the next two decades.

Its a concern James himself has raised and today during his LBC show the penny dropped as to why Holocaust denial is next in a post-truth era.

What you have is the desire to other a population, James said.

On this occasion as Britain and America are at the moment its Muslims and the desire is to portray them all as terrorists or paedophiles or members of grooming gangs.

He continued: They want to do the most textbook sort of style of othering, treat people differently, restrict their laws according to their ethnicity or background.

For example you cant come into this country if you were born into a certain background. You cant access this service if you were born somewhere else.

That kind of politics, and what they cant do is admit that leads to the Holocaust.

So if youre buying into the idea of othering Muslims or Irish people from the NHS or having having some kind of colour bar If you subscribe to that set then you have to deny the Holocaust.

Watch James full analysis in the video at the top of this page.

Here is the original post:
James O’Brien’s Worrying Theory On The Rise Of Holocaust Denial – LBC

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Jeff Bezos, Amazon endorse holocaust denial! (UPDATED …

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

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 14, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 9, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

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

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

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

University refuses to move books by Holocaust denier – The Times

Manchester University has come under fire for refusing to move works by David Irving from open display on library shelves or to label them as Holocaust denial literature. In recent months, growing numbers of British universities, including Cambridge and University College London (UCL), have reclassified works by the controversial writer. They either moved them to closed access areas, or inserted disclaimers inside the books, following a campaign led by Dr Irene Lancaster, formerly a teaching fellow in Jewish history at Manchester University, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, now master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Manchester University, however, has refused to move Irvings books to an area where students would have to ask to read them. Last week, it also refused a request from

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust denial ‘being fuelled by social media and could continue to rise in the UK’ – Express.co.uk

GETTY Sir Peter Bazalgette, chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, said the horrifying stories of survivors remained incredibly powerful. But he warned that Holocaust denial may well grow in the next 20 years, rather than diminish because of misleading posts on social media. He said: A small number of MPs and peers, some of whom live locally, have understandably expressed concerns. Getty Images 1 of 12 The infamous German inscription reads ‘Work Makes Free’ at the main gate of the Auschwitz I extermination camp. We are confident that putting the memorial next to Parliament will improve the park amenity. Sir Peter added: If you search for Holocaust denial youd be astonished at what people bring up. “Theres a danger that the power of the internet reinforces mutual prejudices and its up to all of us to make sure Holocaust denial doesnt grow. Speaking at the launch of a design competition for a new Holocaust Memorial to be sited next to the Houses of Parliament Sir Peter, 64, said the project underlines the importance of learning the lessons of history.

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

James O’Brien’s Worrying Theory On The Rise Of Holocaust Denial – LBC

2 August 2017, 14:13 James O’Brien: This Is Why Holocaust Denial Is On The Rise 00:01:15 A leading campaigner has warned Holocaust denial could rise in the next 20 years, and James OBrien has a theory why this is worryingly true. Sir Peter Bazalgette, chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, believes Holocaust denial may well grow rather than diminish over the next two decades. Its a concern James himself has raised and today during his LBC show the penny dropped as to why Holocaust denial is next in a post-truth era. What you have is the desire to other a population, James said. On this occasion as Britain and America are at the moment its Muslims and the desire is to portray them all as terrorists or paedophiles or members of grooming gangs. He continued: They want to do the most textbook sort of style of othering, treat people differently, restrict their laws according to their ethnicity or background. For example you cant come into this country if you were born into a certain background. You cant access this service if you were born somewhere else. That kind of politics, and what they cant do is admit that leads to the Holocaust. So if youre buying into the idea of othering Muslims or Irish people from the NHS or having having some kind of colour bar If you subscribe to that set then you have to deny the Holocaust. Watch James full analysis in the video at the top of this page.

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 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."