OT as it can get but.....

Yes its bad and thats an old law, in Austria it seems they are ashamed that it was one of their citizens who started a war? and the law is penance I guess. Read 1984 and look how todays laws are being framed there are too many similarities for my liking Derek

No-one seriously believes that the Holocaust didn't happen, but I find it deeply worrying that in Europe we are jailing people for expressing an opinion. Maybe a wrong opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. Every other event in history is open to interpretation, and you can read a variety of viewpoints. No doubt there are people who believe the Battle of Marston Moor never happened. They are wrong (unless they can convince me otherwise ... hence the need for free debate) but they are free to give their view. But for one event in history (the holocaust) there is now apparently an official version, sanctioned by governments, and if you disagree with it, you go to prison. This is straight out of the mind of George Orwell. I've read 1984 many times in the past, but I am going to read it again soon, and I don't expect it to be very comfortable reading.

There's also a bit of concern about the scope of the law. Denying the holocaust is an offence, but David Irving only denied certain aspects of the holocaust and he was convicted. What about someone who disputes the number of Jews killed? Is that an offence? What if I say it was "only" 5,999,999 and not 6 million? Do I go to jail for that? And who decides where the line between denying and agreeing lies, and who is a genuine historian and who is a racist villain? The government again? A committee? Composed of whom? One of my best friends in all the world is a Jew, and I'm not saying this from an anti-semitic viewpoint, but I find the proposition that the government can throw someone in jail for disagreeing with an official version of history to be more disturbing than any ban on hunting, handguns, smoking or whatever.

And Abu Hamza was jailed for incitement to murder. Irving peacefully expressed an opinion. There IS a difference.

Sorry to go on - pet hate.

DaveP

inmate with the number up the

happen. But, this does not make

on MY views of what I have

reason this idiot (he is,

Whilst agreeing that he is an idiot, and wrong, I sometimes wonder if the people who fought in the wars against dictatorship, totalitarianism and for the freedom and values that we held dear weren't wasting thier time and lives. They must be turning in thier graves.

It's funny really, were we now living under the heel of the Third Riech, people would be being locked up expressing the opinion that the holocaust *did* exist. Instead we have a supposedly democratic, free group of states locking up people for stating an opinion that it "doesn't" exist.

Irony isn't the word for it.

Oh, BTW, thanks to this governments craven terror to stand up to the EU federalist dream, you can now be arrested in THIS country and extradited to Austria, should you decided to express similar opinions here, despite it not being an offence in this country. Alex

Bear in mind that this sad nutter is a historian and people therefore were more likely to give credence to his opinion, which made him a dangerous influence. Just as we expect politicians, lawyers etc to set a high example (naive, I know) so do we expect teachers to teach facts not opinions, especially when the sphere of knowledge concerns such a sensitive matter.

But then again, the god-botherers seem to get away with pure opinion and precious little facts in their pontifications .... but that's yet another matter.

Karen

...and Karen Gallagher spake unto the tribes of Usenet, saying...

But that's the point. The "facts" in history are few and far between - most of what we call history is an interpretation of the little we know for certain. To stay away from the holocaust for a minute, the fact that Europe was at war between 1914 and 1918 is a fact. The reasons for the war, why certain things happened as they did and the long-term results of that war are very much matters of opinion, even 80+ years later. There may be a general consensus as to the interpretation, but it's always open to someone who does the research to offer an alternative explanation and have that judged accordingly. Unless it refers to the holocaust, in which case the interpretation is already decided by Government decree (in Austria and Germany at least) and anyone who cares to question that interpretation is a criminal. The laws on holocaust denial may be understandable in those countries, but I still think free speech and open debate are too important to sweep away because they are sometimes uncomfortable to listen to. The fact that I have recently read some of Irving's words and I find his opinions pretty unpleasant is irrelevant to his right to express them.

I worked for many years observing History teachers at close quarters, and I can assure you that "facts" are the least of the things they teach. Compare "Henry VIII died in 1547" with "now class, let's look at the causes of the French Revolution."

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:37:32 +1000, "Karen Gallagher" scribbled the following nonsense:

Don't even go down that route... We are expected to "present the facts in a clear unbiased format, free from prejudice and stereotypes"

Historian he may be but as the world and his dog are aware he is discredited and has been for a good while.Any credance he may have is mainly restricted to the folk (volks) who have poorly spelt tattoos and highly polished boots and no law will change their views.IMO this prosecution merely adds to his noteriety and probably book sales. So far as teaching facts goes that horse is well out of the stable most of the facts I was taught in the 60's are discredited beyond belief and not just scientific facts the quaint episode we called the history of the British Empire appears not so great and so bad that the prime minister takes every opportunity to apologise for it. BTW I can hardly wait for the slimey *** to remember his religions faults and apologise for the Spanish Inquisition Derek Nobody expects the spanish inquisition.........................................

As long as you point out to the kids that every historian will present their "facts" in whatever light they want them to appear and that the kids should research for themselves rather than taking as gospel everything that is taught to them. You know you're doing your job right when they start looking for alternative viewpoints and discussing them rather than simply regurgitating whatever is in their textbooks!

Regards

William MacLeod

.....and tell them to use books - history is busily being re-written on the web. No prizes for guessing who is doing the re-writing, but a site I looked at the other day on the web had the Yanks winning the Battle of the Atlantic! And 2.5 years of neutrality wasn't exactly over-emphasised. And the bit in "The Cruel Sea" about Irelands neutrality and it's effect on the war I've never seen mentioned at all..... and don't get me going about the re-writing of the Chindits history.... and I never realised that Concorde was French, we just paid for it.....

I'll get me coat.....

Richard