 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / February 2006No facts in history
Apparently the Austrians disagree http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1574392.htm Jamie > Apparently the Austrians disagree And half a dozen other European countries. It might not be free speech but to deny the Holocaust is to risk repeating the sort of prejudice that led to such unspeakable horrors. Celia >> Apparently the Austrians disagree > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Celia The denial of free speech is the first step on this road. But my point was that the Holocaust is legally "a fact of history" in these countries, perhaps some of the deniers would like to comment :-)) Jamie > >> Apparently the Austrians disagree > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > countries, perhaps some of the deniers would like to comment :-)) I'd prefer it if they didn't. Alan  SignatureAlan Crozier Lund Sweden "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > "celia" wrote in message >>> Apparently the Austrians disagree >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But my point was that the Holocaust is legally "a fact of history" in > these countries, perhaps some of the deniers would like to comment :-)) The difficulty is we can now absolutely refute one of the early Nuremberg charges (later dropped) with proof (fact) which makes at least the Swiss and French laws based on the findings of the tribunals a problem. We now know irrefutably that it was Soviets who butchered the 4500 Polish Army officers at Katyn (near Smolensk) and not the Germans as originally charged. This calls into question other 'evidence' supplied by the Soviets, any findings based on it, and the moral right of the Soviets to sit in judgment on war crimes tribunals. Denying researchers and historians the legal right to question the findings of a flawed tribunal is itself immoral and wrong. What is needed is to verify the findings of the tribunals in the light of modern research (now being made illegal) without Soviet 'evidence' and the charged and vengeful atmosphere of immediate post-war Europe. Cutting off debate only invites the question of why it is necessary. -the Troll > "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > charged and vengeful atmosphere of immediate post-war Europe. Cutting off > debate only invites the question of why it is necessary. -the Troll I doubt any conviction would stand up under EU law. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Article 11 Freedom of expression and information 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. Jamie "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> The difficulty is we can now absolutely refute one of the early Nuremberg >> charges (later dropped) with proof (fact) which makes at least the Swiss [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > of frontiers. It didn't save one French researcher from loosing his job and having his degree revoked or a Brit, I seem to remember, getting charged under Swiss laws. -the Troll > "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > degree revoked or a Brit, I seem to remember, getting charged under Swiss > laws. -the Troll The Swiss are not governed by EU law. It was suggested tonight that Irving might be returned to Britain to serve his sentence. We would then have an Englishman in an English jail serving time for a crime that doesn't exist under English law or EU law. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm Jamie Yep... You Brits have put yourself in a pretty pickle by joining the EU with all its silly-buggers rules, haven't you? DSH > The Swiss are not governed by EU law. > It was suggested tonight that Irving might be returned to Britain to serve [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jamie "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >>> Freedom of expression and information >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > time for a crime that doesn't exist under English law or EU law. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm I forgot about Switzerland. Can't say I agree much with Irving except for his right to do research in whatever field he wishes and say and publish what he wants unless it is libelous. Funny it is us bitching about it and not the great truth 'n light loving Liberal establishment. My hat's off to Britain for not passing a similar law. -the Troll > "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > light loving Liberal establishment. My hat's off to Britain for not > passing a similar law. -the Troll There was an attempt in 1997 to introduce it, I suspect the Lords blocked it before Blair sacked them all. Jamie "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> Can't say I agree much with Irving except for his right to do research in >> whatever field he wishes and say and publish what he wants unless it is >> libelous. Funny it is us bitching about it and not the great truth 'n >> light loving Liberal establishment. My hat's off to Britain for not >> passing a similar law. -the Troll > There was an attempt in 1997 to introduce it, I suspect the Lords blocked > it before Blair sacked them all. They'd never get away with it here I'm delighted to be able to say. The Left is sneakily restricting free speech in colleges, universities, and in publications by using internal administrative process but they couldn't manage it on a national level and in the light of day. -the Troll ... > The Swiss are not governed by EU law. ... They are, however, members of (and host to the largest office outside New York of) the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948, reads: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.' The European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is the EU's embodiment of the provisions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Colin Bignell > I doubt any conviction would stand up under EU law. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jamie To continue... "2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, ..... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ... " Not quite so clear-cut, is it? Maybe better to try a defence based on Article 9: " 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion......" Looks good so far. Wait a minute, though: " 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ..... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Those pesky second clauses. >> I doubt any conviction would stand up under EU law. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Those pesky second clauses. The Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in 1999 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/doc/charter_364_01en.pdf Article 9 is the Right to Marry. Article 10 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. No pesky second clauses here, or here either, Article 11 Freedom of expression and information 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. Article 12 Freedom of assembly and of association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests. 2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union. Article 13 Freedom of the arts and sciences The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected. Article 14 Right to education 1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training. 2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education. 3. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right. Jamie >>>I doubt any conviction would stand up under EU law. >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Freedom of thought, conscience and religion <<snip rest>> OK, we appear to be at cross-purposes. I misread your post and cited the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights, which dates from 1950, and which is used as the basis for appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. Nevertheless, while the EU's European Court of Justice has made decisions involving human rights, I expect the ECHR would be the court of appeal in the present case, once Austrian courts have decided. The Charter from which you quote will not take effect until the 2004 draft EU Constitution is ratified, and that won't happen, if at all, before Irving completes his sentence. > . . . we can now absolutely refute one of the early Nuremberg > charges (later dropped) . . . > We now know irrefutably that it was Soviets who butchered the 4500 Polish > Army officers at Katyn (near Smolensk) and not the Germans as originally > charged. The Katyn Massacre was not a "charge" at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremburg (1945-46). The charges (of the top 21 survivors of the Nazi government and high command were: 1. Conspiracy to commit crimes in indictments 2-4. 2. Crimes against peace, i.e. invading Poland, Holland, Russia etc. 3. War crimes, e.g. shooting prisoners, as after the Sagan "Great Escape," 1944. 4. Crimes against humanity, e.g. extermination camps, SS "medical" experiments etc. If discussed by the IMT Katyn would obviously figure under charge 3. It is not mentioned in Gilbert's Nuremburg Diary, the first account to hand: but the IMT proceedings must by now be available somewhere on the WWW. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) "Don Phillipson" wrote in message > "hippo" wrote in message >> . . . we can now absolutely refute one of the early Nuremberg >> charges (later dropped) . . . [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to hand: but the IMT proceedings must by now be available > somewhere on the WWW. I know. It was removed from the list. I think there was already in '45 the suspicion that the Soviets had been responsible. -the Troll > Apparently the Austrians disagree > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1574392.htm > > Jamie http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Extract from Universal Declaration of Human Rights by UN. > Preamble [Extract] > Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common > people, ... > Article 18. > Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, > practice, worship and observance. Freedom of Speech is one sure sign of a modern Western society. Every liar or cunning manipulator has the right to spew forth any nasty speech they may think of. What threatens us is that people may forget that their freedoms once lost are hard to recover. Repression of dissidents, enforcement of lies as truth, book burning, discrimination against selected groups, murder of said groups, all this should be left where it belongs, 1930's Gemany. SignatureThur > Apparently the Austrians disagree > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1574392.htm > > Jamie No such thing as bad publicity when there's a new book out, is there? Ugh! The man shouldn't be in cuffs! "Vaughan Sanders" <vjs@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:... >> "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Jamie 3 years is a bit of an interference, now we will see if EU law protects one of its citizens or just asylum seekers and terrorists. Jamie. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.