Free Speech Is The Heart Of Democracy

Posted on Sunday, February 26 at 12:20 by Kevin Parkinson
However, the moment that anyone criticizes the Jewish official story of WW2, free speech is ignored and the ‘hate crimes’ legislation is trotted out. Any questions about the accuracy of the Holocaust reporting are considered to be a defamation of the Jewish dead. Currently in Canada, there are several people who have been accused of ‘hate crimes,’ one of whom is Ernst Zundel, a landed Canadian immigrant who has never been convicted of a crime in this country. Yet our government took the cowardly way out, and instead of releasing Zundel, deported him to his native Germany, where he is being tried in the same manner as David Irving. In Germany it is a crime to deny the holocaust or question any of the historic details. The conviction of Irving is a chilling wake-up call that ‘hate crimes’ legislation is not going away. After WW2, it was the forces of the Anti Defamation League and B’nai B’rith in Germany and Austria that changed government legislation to make it a crime to deny ‘holocaust reality.’ However, holocaust denial laws violate ancient and universal standards of justice. The principle of free speech means that everyone has the right to express alternative viewpoints, particularly about history. It means listening to views that may be distasteful but that is the legacy of ‘free speech.’ ‘Holocaust denial’ laws are inherently unjust because they are selective and one sided. They prohibit dissent about only one chapter of history. Laws criminalizing dissent about other chapters of history, such as the treatment of the North American Indian or the Irish in the 19th century, would be considered outrageous. I agree with Voltaire (1906) when he said: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" I think we need to revisit the so-called ‘hate laws’ in this country, since it is apparent that they lead to selective prosecutions based on the whims of those who wield power. We already have lots of laws on the books to deal with criminals. In ‘1984,’ George Orwell warned that society would eventually punish ‘thought crimes’ in a totalitarian state. The David Irving case has been a flashpoint that should make us all stop and think about where ‘democracy’ is headed.

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 



  1. by shagya
    Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:18 pm
    I agree absolutely. If we didn't have "hate" crime legislation then the extremists on the Muslim side would not be able (as easily) to convince their followers that the West is out to "get" them. Let's get rid of this Ingsoc bullshit everywhere. I hope that Europe's recent discovery of real backbone where the Imams are concerned will carry over to the Zionists. They're half way...which is still much better than us.

  2. Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:34 pm
    People should be aware that Ernst Zundel sits in prison for much the same thing, there's no reason to go looking to Austria for examples. Zundel was 'charged' under the new terrorism laws, which meant he could not see most of the evidence against him.

    At least in Austria it was a 'fair' trial. People have to remember that Austria's nazi past was a very ugly time for the country and something it has had to deal with for a long time. When you live in a country responsible for attempted genocide then it makes SOME sense to have such laws. The Nazi regime got started with 'controlled free speech', in other words, increasing rhetoric aimed at a minority. I'm not defending this move, I don't know the information (I can add that most other commentors on it don't know anything further than what the headlines say either).

    However, Zundel gets hardly a peep out of canadians who have no problem jumping up and pointing at examples half a world away.

  3. Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:13 am
    With most of the people (with the exception of childeren) who were involved in WW2, I think laws like these are fast becoming archaic. While I do think that spreading hate is one thing, questioning the holocaust purely on academic grounds should be allowed. (Calling any deniers idiots should also be allowed.)

    I think the criminalization of holocaust denial has outlived it's usefulness. I don't think any amount of deniers will ever be able to rewrite history.

    However, I think laws banning people actively trying to incite unreasonable hatred of any group still have some merit. It's hard to draw the line on this kind of debate.

  4. Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:21 am
    We don't call people "Niggers or Ragheads" anymore. Bigotry has never been freespeach. Stereo-typing is bigotry and yes, I believe bigots are not entitled to call it freespeach. "Denying" death camps became the issue, when he tried to convince everyone that Jews were not being persecuted.

    Expect little from life and get more from it.

  5. by ICHEE
    Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:25 am
    On flying pigs

    The punishment of Holocaust deniers ultimately threatens the credibility

    of the Holocaust as a verifiable event. Like all other historical events, it can

    defend itself without the help of the policeman.

    Frederick Dreyer, professor emeritus,

    Department of History, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

  6. by Deacon
    Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:13 am
    "Furthermore, he made the statement in 1989 while giving a speech in that country."

    They wait 17 years to bust this guy?

    Smells like week old fishmeal to me.

    Personally I think the 6 million number is an understatement, but that's my opinion.

    If someone wants to question it, by all means let them.

  7. Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:36 pm
    That's the usual melancholy argument by hypocritical canadians. Zundel MUST have been 'inciting hatred' since he's in jail HERE. How much more 'inciteful' has David Irving been? Zundel's books are difficult to come by, his rhetoric about the holocaust is FAR lighter than Irvings, in fact Zundel isn't even a 'holocaust denier'. The case in Canada is FAR worse than Austria, yet how often do you hear about it?

    EVERYONE who wants to ban speech they don't like can say it 'incites hatred'. If I do an editorial cartoon making fun of politicians, who's to say that doesn't incite hatred of politicians? If I make a stereotypical joke about the disabled, women, a minority, a teacher, a dentist, can't THEY say that it 'incites hatred'? WHO exactly decides that it's hatred? Clearly in Canada the courts aren't even interested, which is why Zundel was tried under Canada's new terrorism laws. They don't even want EVIDENCE to be in the public. Good lord people, YOU are living in Germany and you're grousing about Austria?

  8. Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:04 pm
    What ever the number are and it was not only one race that was Persecuted the pale when held up the billions, YES! BILLIONS !!
    Who will be the walking dead when this new world order movement takes hold!
    It both saddens and angers me at how few people actually see what is going on.
    It angers me there are so many on forums like this world wide that by their bleating attempt to drown out the voices of those of us who sound the alarm.

    Is this ‘the way it is?’

    Is the universe unfolding as it should?

    Are these the prevailing thoughts?

    Max Ehrmann


    Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
    and remember what peace there may be in silence.
    As far as possible without surrender
    be on good terms with all persons.
    Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
    and listen to others,
    even the dull and the ignorant;
    they too have their story.
    Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
    they are vexations to the spirit.
    If you compare yourself with others,
    you may become vain and bitter;
    for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
    Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
    Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
    it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
    Exercise caution in your business affairs;
    for the world is full of trickery.
    But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
    many persons strive for high ideals;
    and everywhere life is full of heroism.
    Be yourself.
    Especially, do not feign affection.
    Neither be cynical about love;
    for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
    it is as perennial as the grass.
    Take kindly the counsel of the years,
    gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
    Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
    But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
    Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
    Beyond a wholesome discipline,
    be gentle with yourself.
    You are a child of the universe,
    no less than the trees and the stars;
    you have a right to be here.
    And whether or not it is clear to you,
    no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
    Therefore be at peace with God,
    whatever you conceive Him to be,
    and whatever your labors and aspirations,
    in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
    it is still a beautiful world.
    Be cheerful.
    Strive to be happy.
    Max Ehrmann, Desiderata, Copyright 1952.

    Because if they are Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm and 1984 are your heritage

    People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
    Alexei Sayle

  9. by Deacon
    Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:46 pm
    Les Crane covered this as the song "Desiderata" on his album of the same name.

    The rest of the songs are good as well.

    Now on to something darker.

    Those in charge of the current system are evil incarnate. Self serving parasites who treasure personal gain above all else and are more than willing to sacrifice as many lives as required in order that their interests are protected and expanded.

    There are resources enough on this planet for all, but these human tapeworms want it all.

    While as a general rule I am opposed to violence, there are times when I have to wonder if that's the only way to make them stop their systematic raping and pillaging of not only the earth, but of our decendants futures as well.

    These people, none of them financially worth anything less than what any 500 of us would make in 1,000 lifetimes, are the true embodiment of Terrorism.

    Terrorists don't wear turbans, they wear suits.

  10. Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:36 pm
    Deacon said:

    "Personally I think the 6 million number is an understatement, but that's my opinion."

    Here is that magical "6 million" being bandied about again! Based on what??

    The International Red Cross reports don't support this, and they had free access to ALL camps during WW2.

    The official commemoration plaque in Auschwitz states 1.5 2 million from the original 6m makes 3.5m.

    And this is NOT my opinion. This is the same mathematics that permits airplanes to fly, bridges to hold up, elevators to do their thing, power plants get the idea.

    Not even official zionist dogma can substantiate 6m. Otherwise why bother shutting up all who ask questions?

    Remember: Name-calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel.

    H.F. Wolff

  11. Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:02 pm
    "The International Red Cross reports don't support this, and they had free access to ALL camps during WW2."<br />
    <br />
    Bullshit. Show me links to the Red Cross reports on Auchwitz-Berkenau. I would love to see the Red Cross reports stating people were walking in the front door, and being dragged out the back. I'd also like to see what the Germans did with the officer who approved the Red Cross be allowed to monitor places like Auchwitz.<br />
    <br />
    "The official commemoration plaque in Auschwitz states 1.5 2 million from the original 6m makes 3.5m."<br />
    <br />
    You can't balance a chequebook with that kind of math, let alone fly a plane. How many Romas died there? Sinti? How many Poles? Russian POW's? How many died in Belzec? Chelmno? Koldychevo? Majdanek? Sobibor? Treblinka? <br />
    <br />
    Estimates are between 3.1 and 5.8 million. And that was just in Poland. <br />
    <br />
    6 Million is a nice round number.<br />
    <br />
    <a href=""></a><p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

  12. by Deacon
    Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:21 pm
    In war, the very first casualty is the truth. period.

    Show me one war where accurate numbers of civilian dead are known. I know of none, do you?

    What I do know, is that in the last century, more than 500 million people have died either in wars or at the hands of despots.

    But when we speak of WWII, some say that there is no way that 6 million Hebrews could have died, that there is no way that it is possible. But we seem to be able to agree that it was at LEAST 3.5 million.

    Perhaps the number is 3.5 million as you claim, but your posturing betrays bias.

    Are the lives of those 3.5 million worth any less than they would be if the number was 6 million, or maybe 10?

    By reading what you said, maybe they'd be worth more than you consider them to be if they were caucasian, nordic, or even slavic.

    That even 6 thousand died is a disgrace. That you belittle the value of their lives isn't my problem, it's yours.

    I may be wrong, you may be wrong. I'm good with that.

    That's not the issue however, it's that you seem to value the numbers involved rather than the people those numbers represented.

    And I'm not calling anyone anything, I have my beliefs and you have yours.

    "Personally I think the 6 million number is an understatement, but that's my opinion.

    If someone wants to question it, by all means let them."

    Read that last bit again:

    "If someone wants to question it, by all means let them."

    Show me where exactly I'm telling anyone to be silent?

    I dare ya.

  13. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:41 am
    Dr? Caleb said:

    "6 Million is a nice round number."
    "You can't balance a chequebook with that kind of math, let alone fly a plane."

    There's the rub.

    But it's good enough to defame and demonize an entire people, right Dr? Caleb?????

    If you are going to hang someone for a crime, you better have your facts and numbers straight. 3.5m or 6m or "nice round number" doesn't cut it. Certainly not in a Canadian court of law. Now the Cnadian Human Rights Tribunal is a different thing altogether. The worthies of that august body have actually ruled that "The Truth is no Defense". This is fact and can be checked.

    What I'm really curious about is why over the last 60 years the world, in particular the US, Canada, Britain, Israel, has always picked on Germany.

    Germany is hardly a major offender in the scheme of the world's ills, and for the 50 or so years I've been an observer of this planet it appears that Germany is one of the more decent countries around.

    So what gives? I have heard of the "Holocaust"; for crying out loud who hasn't, but, it appears at least to me that those countries or people hollering holocaust the loudest have, at least in my observation, been among the worst perpetrators of grief and suffering on this planet during my lifetime.

    What irritates this individual and, by all accounts numerous others I'm glad to see, is that one can blaspheme or question everything in the name of "freedom of speech" but, point out some glaring errors in the Hollywood fable of the Holocaust and watch the hue and cry and character assassination if you are lucky, jail if you are not.

    There is something rotten about this, to say nothing of the hypocrisy.

    H.F. Wolff

  14. Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:12 am
    Deacon said:

    "What I do know, is that in the last century, more than 500 million people have died either in wars or at the hands of despots."

    Then why not seek justice from those who are responsible for the remaining 494,000,000, or 496,500,000, or 499,400,000 killed people?

    Why pick on the Germans for a "measly" 6m or 3.5m or whatever? (measly only as compared to 500,000,000 you quoted).

    You're not going to blame the Germans for the whole 500m, are you? (You will keep in mind that England and its colonies, France, and the US in fact, declared war on Germany? For what reason??? To keep Poland free? After it was occupied by the Soviets too?

    Just for clarification, it is generally agreed that in 1939 there were about 15,600,000 people of the jewish persuasion alive on this world. The same number for 1945, '46, '47, '48, '49, '50, '51, with a variance of about 100,000 to 200,000. Only in 1952 it became 9.5m.

    If you know a little of history you will see that this scenario stinks.

    For your information I do NOT espouse any number for the Hollywood Holocaust. I was merely pointing out that the "official" number of 3.5m never gets mentioned; it is still, always, 6m.

    Surely you can tell the difference, in numbers and in implication?

    H.F. Wolff

view comments in forum

You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.

Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news