Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

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

Extremist charged with Holocaust denial – The Slovak Spectator

Marian Magt says he is still running for ilina Region post.

The police charged far-right extremist leader Marian Magt with Holocaust denial, referring to his comments on a social network. If he is found guilty, he may spend up to eight years in prison, the public-service broadcaster RTVS reported.

Despite the accusations, Magt still wants to run for the government post in ilina Region in the November regional elections.

Magt is one of the founders of Vzdor (Resistance) Kysuce, which the Interior Ministry classifies as an extremist group. In last years general election he unsuccessfully ran on the slate of Peoples Party Our Slovakia (SNS), led by Marian Kotleba.

Earlier this year, the court sentenced him to three years conditionally for illegal arming. Magt was also invited for hearing after he encouraged people attending a protest against Islamisation to tear the European Unions flag, RTVS informed.

Magt does not conceal his Antisemitism or admiration of Adolf Hitler, whom he has described as peacemaker and a person with his heart on the right place.

The police had already proposed charging Magt for his statements at the beginning of this year, but the prosecutors office officially submitted the charges to the district court in adca on July 27, RTVS reported.

Magt said earlier this year that he is not the only administrator of his blog posts and social network profiles, so the police cannot prove it was actually him who wrote the posts. He is now casting doubt on the experts who prepared opinions.

They cannot explain what Holocaust denial is. Not even the law knows it, Magt told RTVS.

2. Aug 2017 at 5:49 |Compiled by Spectator staff

Thank you for singing up. Shortly an email will be sent to the address you provided to verify your e-mail.

Error! Please try to register again later, your e-mail was not registered.

Your email is not in a correct format.

Originally posted here:
Extremist charged with Holocaust denial – The Slovak Spectator

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Social media ‘fosters Holocaust denial’ – The Times

Holocaust denial is likely to increase as people rely more strongly on social networks for information, the chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation has warned.

Sir Peter Bazalgette, who formerly led Arts Council England, said that tech and publishing companies such as Facebook and Twitter allowed people to choose to communicate only with those who shared their views, which could result in groups of deniers whose opinions went unchallenged.

Speaking at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London at the opening of a display of designs for a new memorial centre, Sir Peter said that the project would allow visitors to the centres site next to the Houses of Parliament to see video testimonies from 112 survivors of the Nazi attempt to wipe out Jews

The rest is here:
Social media ‘fosters Holocaust denial’ – The Times

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 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

Extremist charged with Holocaust denial – The Slovak Spectator

Marian Magt says he is still running for ilina Region post. The police charged far-right extremist leader Marian Magt with Holocaust denial, referring to his comments on a social network. If he is found guilty, he may spend up to eight years in prison, the public-service broadcaster RTVS reported. Despite the accusations, Magt still wants to run for the government post in ilina Region in the November regional elections. Magt is one of the founders of Vzdor (Resistance) Kysuce, which the Interior Ministry classifies as an extremist group. In last years general election he unsuccessfully ran on the slate of Peoples Party Our Slovakia (SNS), led by Marian Kotleba. Earlier this year, the court sentenced him to three years conditionally for illegal arming. Magt was also invited for hearing after he encouraged people attending a protest against Islamisation to tear the European Unions flag, RTVS informed. Magt does not conceal his Antisemitism or admiration of Adolf Hitler, whom he has described as peacemaker and a person with his heart on the right place. The police had already proposed charging Magt for his statements at the beginning of this year, but the prosecutors office officially submitted the charges to the district court in adca on July 27, RTVS reported. Magt said earlier this year that he is not the only administrator of his blog posts and social network profiles, so the police cannot prove it was actually him who wrote the posts. He is now casting doubt on the experts who prepared opinions. They cannot explain what Holocaust denial is. Not even the law knows it, Magt told RTVS. 2. Aug 2017 at 5:49 |Compiled by Spectator staff Thank you for singing up. Shortly an email will be sent to the address you provided to verify your e-mail. Error! Please try to register again later, your e-mail was not registered. Your email is not in a correct format.

Fair Usage Law

August 2, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Social media ‘fosters Holocaust denial’ – The Times

Holocaust denial is likely to increase as people rely more strongly on social networks for information, the chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation has warned. Sir Peter Bazalgette, who formerly led Arts Council England, said that tech and publishing companies such as Facebook and Twitter allowed people to choose to communicate only with those who shared their views, which could result in groups of deniers whose opinions went unchallenged. Speaking at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London at the opening of a display of designs for a new memorial centre, Sir Peter said that the project would allow visitors to the centres site next to the Houses of Parliament to see video testimonies from 112 survivors of the Nazi attempt to wipe out Jews

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 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."