The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 246

Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland?


DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #151
I used to think that radical muslims were more inclined to use violence, but I am afraid I had to revise my opinion. The thing that makes it more scary is that "we" are the target, so it threatens our "comfort zone" more directly.

Yes, Stu, I agree with you on many aspects! Crazy people among our own need to be dealt with accordingly! That's why we have developed a very extencive law system for our societies. It is specifically made to deal with our people, who have our culture and society as a foundation. The muslims come from klan-based societies, from societies that view the macho culture of honour and violence as the thing that solves problems, rather than a court and a judge. They laugh at our laws and sentences, and look upon our prisons as 4-star hotels and a notch in their "macho" belt.

So to import MORE crazy people is just that, crazy! If you have water in your basement, you don't put a hose on full pump and put it in the basement as well, do you?

If we are to open our borders, I want fully functional people, people that are mostly secular, at least in their every day life, people with degrees in engineering, science, medicine. People who will contribute and even elevate our societies. Many such people come from third world countries like India and parts of Asia. I'm sorry to say only a handful of the muslims qualify for this description. Note to SeanBM, jonni, Harry...I actually have a muslim doctor from Iran. He is great! But if he kept a woman in a burkha at his reception desk and demanded that my wife sit in the back when we go together to visit him, he would not see me again!

When it comes to the radical Christians, they live in a special world, and it's sad if they don't take part in the normal society, as the ones you described in Holland. We have a "bibel-belt" here in Norway too. Small churches every mile...."Holy fire of Jesus Christ chuch", or "The blessed church of the first saints", and so on....some weird names down there. A lot of homeschooling goes on there too. But as a counterpart to the muslims, they don't create "no-go zones" for non-christians in their areas, they don't sell drugs, they don't gang rape our young girls, they don't stab and kill people who critizise them, like happened to Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh in Holland. The radical christians don't occupy an unproportionate percentage of jail cells for the things I just mentioned above. They don't demand governement funded churches being built with towers that dominate the skyline. They don't, like unfortunately many muslims do, honour-kill their daughters and mothers, or throw acid in their faces, scarring them for life. They don't claim financial support for children they don't have and scam the welfare system in every way possible. They don't fill up all the battered-women centres and mental health institutions. They don't like the muslims do, demand that we give them time off for their own holidays, the removal of Jesus and christmas carols from traditional christian celebrations, seperate swimming pools, muslim prayer rooms in every governmental workplace or at airports etc. They don't demand specially prepared foods, blessed by their religious leaders in schools, even in jail! They don't demand religiously seperated old peoples homes...the list is soooo long.

And if someone from the christian realm wants to quit, to enter the "atheist" society, they can do so without having to live under protected housing, using false names and being afraid their whole life. Because in christianity, denying your faith, is not punishable by death! Yes, there exists some christian cults who approach some very un-democratic ways of life, but they are so small in comparison with the general population, they are not the norm. As opposed to the muslims, in which their religion and holy book dictate their lives 24/7. They are obliged to follow it, or are punished by their society if they don't. It's the will of Allah....It's important to see and understand this difference!

There are many differences between radical christians and muslims, Stu...but as you said, we have our own bad apples! So, let's not import more, shall we? And IF WE DO, they have to swear an allegiance to our laws and our ways of life. They may not bring their whole klan mentality with them, and if they break any laws they will be returned! I personally would like to see the introduction of worker-programs on a time-litmited basis, as they have in Asia. You come for 3-5-7 years, you work, you send money back home, and then you leave...for home! For good!

SeanBM: About the introduction of islam to this thread, kind of sorry, Harry mentioned that I am a bigot and brush everyone with my brush of hate...so it kind of got off from there. But, I'll be more than happy to get back on the actual topic, although my comment was meant to illustrate that people who usually want to ban right wing opinion, usually have no problem letting violent and extreme muslims to have their say. But of course, it's easy for you to now use this an excuse not to actually have an opinion on this matter. And hey, who made you the dictator? I know how much you leftist like totalitarian systems, so go ahead, SeanBM.

DariuszTelka
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #152
But of course, it's easy for you to now use this an excuse not to actually have an opinion on this matter. And hey, who made you the dictator?

Dictator? What are you on?

although my comment was meant to illustrate that people who usually want to ban right wing opinion, usually have no problem letting violent and extreme muslims to have their say.

You go on long off topic rants blaming 'lefties', PC, on not allowing freedom of speech.
I have shown you have limits to freedom of speech, all you have illustrated is which hate speech you approve of.
Now we are talking about a Holocaust denier and all you seem to be doing is circumventing the topic of the thread and pointing fingers at Muslims.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #153
You go on long off topic rants blaming 'lefties', PC, on not allowing freedom of speech.

A thread can go many ways. If I could connect the muslims to this thread, it is the fact that leftist want to stifle debate if it's people like Irving or political right-wing parties, but have no problem allowing muslims to say things that are much more hateful and anti-democratic. It's this double standard and hypocrisy that I'm out to understand. So, the consequenses of allowing muslims to come into majority power would be that the holocaust never happened, that the sale of Mein Kampf would again be legalized and other than that, there would be no free speech. And no PF for that matter to even debate free speech! How about them apples?

I have shown you have limits to freedom of speech, all you have illustrated is which hate speech you approve of.

Well, hats of to you for doing such a great job! I have argued about the fact that you can't debate free speech with people who don't see that as a basic right for every citizen. You on the other hand, seem not to have any problems with this logic.

Now we are talking about a Holocaust denier and all you seem to be doing is circumventing the topic of the thread and pointing fingers at Muslims.

David Irving is not even on the same planet as the muslims. He represents a branch of our western, free speech society. He does not want to overtake our countries and bring in draconian laws that we repelled with the blood of our heroes. Why would you stifle him, but allow islamic preaching on the same land?

So, how about you then, SeanBM, would you allow David Irving to have guided tours in Auschwitz, unsupervised? Would you allow him to hold speeches at hotels, conference halls and in public, in which he debates the holocaust?

DariuszTelka
Stu 12 | 522
25 Sep 2010 #154
like happened to Pim Fortuyn

He wasn't killed by a muslim, Dariusz. But by an environmental extremist and animal rights activist.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #155
It's this double standard and hypocrisy that I'm out to understand.

I suggest taking a look at your own hypocrisies.
You are again just talking around the issue, using Muslims as scapegoats, blaming PC, lefties on not saying enough against racist attacks from extremist Muslims, well this thread is not about that and continuing to mask the topic says a lot about you.

You on the other hand, seem not to have any problems with this logic.

You are saying ALL Muslims do not want freedom of speech, that's a lie.

would you allow David Irving to have guided tours in Auschwitz, unsupervised?

No, hate speech is illegal for a reason.

Would you allow him to hold speeches at hotels, conference halls and in public, in which he debates the holocaust?

"In January 1990, Irving gave a speech in Moers where he asserted that only 30,000 people died at Auschwitz between 1940-45, all of natural causes, which was equal-so he claimed-to the typical death toll from one Bomber Command raid on German cities.[106] Furthermore, Irving claimed that there were no gas chambers at that death camp.[106] In that speech, Irving said: "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war""

Wiki

All hate speech is illegalfor a very good reason but you are a right wing nut, so you only have a problem with Muslims making hate speeches, go figure.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #156
All hate speech is illegal for a very good reason but you are a right wing nut, so you only have a problem with Muslims making hate speeches, go figure.

Ok, so we agree. Hatespeech is Verboten, this makes both Irving, AND islam illegal!

I can live with that!

Why didn't you just say this right away, we could have been spared all these posts.

Thanks for clearing this up for us!

DariuszTelka
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #157
this makes both Irving, AND islam illegal!
I can live with that!

When an extremist Muslim preaches hate, absolutely but not all Muslims do this.
Like not all authors are holocaust deniers.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #158
All hate speech is illegal

Wot???
What is hate speech and who decides it?
When I say "I hate terrorist islamists" is that Hate Speech???
When Irving tries to proof that the Holocaust isn't what the main stream thinks it is is that Hate speech???

Where does it start and where does it end? "Hate speech" is just another leftie concept the world doesn't need!
Seanus 15 | 19,706
25 Sep 2010 #159
We can't just get rid of those that don't serve our agendas in one dismissive stroke. David Irving, though I may disagree with him, is taking a 'bring it' attitude and why not discuss it with him? After all, none of us were there at those camps so we are relying on hearsay, snippets and books of dubious credibility.

Important is that debate occurs in the first place and not who wins. Even more so when it comes to our own humanity.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #160
Wot???
What is hate speech and who decides it?
When I say "I hate terrorist islamists" is that Hate Speech???
When Irving tries to proof that the Holocaust isn't what the main stream thinks it is is that Hate speech???

Jeez BB, read through the thread, I have posted all over this thread about what is accepted as hate speech.

Where does it start and where does it end? "Hate speech" is just another leftie concept the world doesn't need!

Here we go again...
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #161
Jeez BB, read through the thread,

Manno...all this reading!

*goes reading*
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #162
Here's the part for Germany
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Germany

It seems you Germans have the biggest section in Wiki about Laws against Holocaust denial.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #163
Here's the part about for Germany

Thank you...but Germany doesn't count!
We started out occupied under surveillance of the occupying powers...most of these kind of law had to to with the de-Nazification in the West and with the Communization in the East.

The following govs never changed them, they only rephrased and adapted them.
Freedom of speech in Germany died with the Weimar Republic.

But "Hate Speech" is a kind of new western concept...stemming from those countries who actually did everything to fight the Nazis and their censorship..wonders never cease.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #164
We started out occupied under surveillance of the occupying powers.

In fairness, that was a prudent precaution, had this measure been taken after the first world war, perhaps we wouldn't have had a second, well that might be a but too optimistic but at least not a second so quickly.

But "Hate Speech" is a kind of new western concept...stemming from those countries who actually did everything to fight the Nazis.

I think the idea is that people don't incite hanging posies and take the law in to their own hands.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #165
Dictator? What are you on?

I have posted all over this thread about what is accepted as hate speech.

I told you he was a dictator.... ;-)

DariuszTelka
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #166
In fairness, that was a prudent precaution, had this measure been taken after the first world war, perhaps we wouldn't have had a second, well that might be a but too optimistic but at least not a second so quickly.

Dunno...censorship didn't help either the Nazis nor the Commies in the end...so I doubt forbidding "hate speech" will be more successful.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #167
I told you he was a dictator.... ;-)

No fair, I meant from links to wiki not what I think hate speech is...

I doubt forbidding "hate speech" will be anymore successful.

I agree to a degree, arresting guys like Irvin makes him a martyr which is probably the worst thing you could do.
But an eye has to be kept on Neo-Nazis and Extremist Muslims (especially for you DZ) to make sure they don't go around killing or destroying people.

censorship

It is also a fair point to bring a discussion about 'censorship' in to this but I think it has more to do with incitement to hatred and causing a violent reaction in people, rather than much else.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #168
But an eye has to be kept on Neo-Nazis and Extremist Muslims (especially for you DZ) to make sure they don't go around killing or destroying people.

See...that is the problem!
We don't have an omnipotent, wise, objective judge whose decisions what is despicable hate speech and what is just freedom of speech are respected and agreed on!

In Germany I've heard about a curios event as one got accused of making a Hitler Greeting...but the poor bugger just reached up to a book on a book shelf...

That is not funny anymore when you think about that!

It's a society of snitchers and informers in the making...EVERYBODY can accuse EVERYBODY on saying a wrong thing.
And on the political stage it's just a weapon to beat your adversary with...even if he is far from being a neo-nazi!
It get's abused left and right!!!

So what if the few neo's and the muslim extremist use hate speech (they do it anyhow)?
Is it worth that we have to watch everything we say?
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #169
So what if the few neo's and the muslim extremist use hate speech (they do it anyhow)?
Is it worth that we have to watch everything we say?

If we try to harm other people, then yes.
Same as we have to watch our actions, you can't go around punching people in the face, now can you?

Isn't this how Hitler started off, by giving hate speeches in bars?

speech
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #170
If we try to harm other people, then yes.

Get real, how can you harm other people through talking!!!
They weren't harmed during the last millenias but during the last 20 years they suddenly started
to drop down dead???

And no, Hitler was a child of the aftermath of WWI...it wasn't his talking what brought the
Nazis to power.
I talk alot too...some really mean things and still I'm not going out gassing Jews tomorrow!
Hitler is such a overused smokescreen for thought control and censorship fans it also stopped
being funny awhile back!

"Hate speechers" aren't trying to avoid another Hitler - they rather follow him and his Gestapo!
What's next? Re-education/Concentration camps?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
25 Sep 2010 #171
Of course you can harm people through talking, BB. Never heard of slander or defamation? Harm is not only physical, you know ;) People believe character attacks all too often.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #172
Of course you can harm people through talking, BB. Never heard of slander or defamation? Harm is not only physical, you know ;)

Well, somehow mankind survived so far without a "Hate speech"-law...
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #173
Get real, how can you harm other people through talking!!!

Incitement to riot.

Okay, so you see no case where people's words leads to actions leads to harm?

You are okay to have extremist rallies promoting hate?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #174
Incitement to riot.

And??? So what???
Seanie...the world lived with that since eternity!!!

The only ones who needed "laws" controlling speeches and thoughts had been dictatorships, don't you get this?

You are for example okay to have extremist rallies promoting hate?

I have to accept it from our dear muslims, haven't I? And there is nothing I can do about it!

But beware I might look at one of them funny...
Seanus 15 | 19,706
25 Sep 2010 #175
It's the after-effects that you have to worry about, BB. Hitler was clearly gearing up for sth sinister. The same as that Terry Jones/Koran idiot. Opinions are opinions but his speech was inflammatory and designed to bring about anarchy.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #176
I have to accept it from our dear muslims too, haven't I?

I would say no, you don't.
Not if it is geared towards hate, you are a member of society and with that you have the right to exist and have your own identity and thoughts, without being in fear of your life.

The only ones who needed "laws" controlling speeches and thoughts had been dictatorships, don't you get this?

No, I don't, I see a problem with brain washing people in to hating others.
I am not talking about disliking, I am talking about going out and killing others.

I would not like to see any extremist movement rallying down the road from me, inciting hatred and watching the sub-sequential aftermath.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #177
Opinions are opinions but his speech was inflammatory and designed to bring about anarchy.

Well...you can say that about every successfull politician and foremost he wanted to get to power.
And he is dead!

Hate speech laws are a quite recent development in the democratic West, brought to us by the same people who enriched us with their ideal of Multikulti and Socialism.

I wonder why commie speak never features here...Commies killed many more people than Nazis but it's somehow always the neo-nazis (think every conservative right from the left) who have to be kept under observation through these hate-speech laws...and by whom?

Hmmm....

I would not like to see any extremist movement rallying down the road from me, inciting hatred and watching the sub-sequential aftermath.

You are a wuss! ;)
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #178
I wonder why commie speak never features here.

Good question.

.Commies killed many more people than Nazis but it's somehow always the neo-nazis who have to be kept under observation...and by whom?

I am using the word extremists, as I think that sums up pretty much anyone who would like to cause harm.

and by whom?

I am not saying that things can't get messy, that such laws couldn't be manipulated to suit an extremist political group to quieten their opposition.

But what I am saying is you are a member of society and with that you have the right to exist and have your own identity and thoughts, without being in fear of your life.

Get real, how can you harm other people through talking!!!
They weren't harmed during the last millenias but during the last 20 years they suddenly started
to drop down dead???

I think you are romanticising the past far far too much.

The main reason they probably didn't need hate speech laws is because they would have just burnt you at the stake for being a witch.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #179
No fair, I meant from links to wiki not what I think hate speech is...

Sorry, I feel like Harry now...

If anyone thinks David Irving is being harrassed then think again...this newsstory worries me a bit more than a 72 year old man having alternative views on the holocaust;

"Three-year-olds being labelled bigots by teachers as 250,000 children accused of racism"

It goes on;

"Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged 'racist' language, it was claimed last night".

"Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000".

"More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said".


The WHAT act? The Race Relations Act 2000? The New World Order, coming to a kindergarden near you....

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314438/3-year-olds-labelled-bigots-teachers-250k-children-accused-racism.html

F*ck the holocaust deniers, let's get the kids!

DariuszTelka
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
25 Sep 2010 #180
The main reason they probably didn't need hate speech laws is because they would have just burnt you at the stake for being a witch.

...and I would have told them what I think of them VERY explicitely!!!

"Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged 'racist' language, it was claimed last night".

That's exactly what I meant Seanie!

It get's abused far to much...and does this law really stop people from bullying others verbally? I don't think so...
Best thing is till to give back as good as you get!

Home / History / Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland?
Discussion is closed.