Holocaust Denial...

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Across a number of nations, it is illegal to deny or challenge any of the officially given facts (sic), about the holocaust.

You need not be a goose stepping Nazi to break the law, you can do so by merely challenging or questioning part of what is taught by state schools.

And that to me is wrong.

I can understand that it is a sensitive subject, esp in nations like Austria and Germany.

But to make mere words and questions a criminal offence is NOT the way to be.

If anything, it merely martyrs those that do fully deny the events of that time, and gives them undeserving profiles.

The 'truth' should not need protecting in law, should it?

If we sanction the banning of questioning one aspect of history, no matter how macabre, we also open up the arguement for questioning any part of history, and I think that is a lame road to go down.

Far better to let the historians(that think this way) have their say, point to their anamolies, then show them to be all lies, if that is what they are.



Using the legal system to suppress him merely gives them cult status

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Across a number of nations, it is illegal to deny or challenge any of the officially given facts (sic), about the holocaust.

You need not be a goose stepping Nazi to break the law, you can do so by merely challenging or questioning part of what is taught by state schools.

And that to me is wrong.

I can understand that it is a sensitive subject, esp in nations like Austria and Germany.

But to make mere words and questions a criminal offence is NOT the way to be.

If anything, it merely martyrs those that do fully deny the events of that time, and gives them undeserving profiles.

The 'truth' should not need protecting in law, should it?

If we sanction the banning of questioning one aspect of history, no matter how macabre, we also open up the arguement for questioning any part of history, and I think that is a lame road to go down.

Far better to let the historians(that think this way) have their say, point to their anamolies, then show them to be all lies, if that is what they are.



Using the legal system to suppress the likes of David Irving merely gives them cult status