Jack the Lad

“why such denial is illegal in some countries.”

Look at the countries in which it is illegal. Without a knee-jerk reaction, think very carefully and use your deducive ability as to why this is so. Alternatively, read official transcripts from such countries as to why this has been implemented.

Steven has more than adequately explained the nature of archival material. When Hitler’s “diaries” emerged, they were subjected to forensic analysis revealing that not only was Hitler’s writing forged, but also both the paper on which it was written and the ink was made post-war. And this was only the forensic analysis ...

Other writers raise very important points. Absolutely valid.

Yes ... yes! Critical Thinking and Philosophy should be core subjects at school; indeed, perhaps Political Science. Also, the teaching of students how to research and evaluate data.

Once given permission and the tools for young people to think beyond prejudices they may hear, indeed think for themselves, they become amazingly skillful at assessing facts; so desparately needed in our society. Not only in the political and historical areas, but also in science ... the rise of creationism and intelligent design ... With the rapid movements in science itself, the broader community must become involved in many of the ethical delimmas to which they will be confronted.

The media also needs to be put under the lens ...

Critical Thinking and research skills should be introduced gradually as soon as children can read and use a computer. Their enquirying minds make this a suitable time to start. By the time they reach university, indeed leave school, these skills should be as automatic as breathing.

Steven,

“My hope is that one day all this material will be scanned and made available on the internet. Now that would advance the teaching of history.”

Absolutely.

cont ...

“ ... university educated lefties justify their support for such monsters. Mostly they dismissed negative reporting about the Soviet Union or Communist China as "imperialist" or "anti-Soviet" propaganda.”

Unhappily, correct. They refused to recognise the evidence, even from those who had experienced atrocities first-hand. Communism was their religion. It must be noted that most lefties at university had never experienced anything more traumatic than losing their car-keys.

“Today the same university educated lefties call negative reporting on Islam "Islamophobia." They accuse those of us who point to the horrors of Islam of "demonising" Muslims and call us "prejudiced.”

They are not doing Muslims any favours by doing this. Muslim intellectuals and dissidents in Iran look to the West for moral support against the Islamic atrocities in their country. Again, Iranian intellectuals and dissidents regularly “disappear”. Where is our support for them?

Arab Muslim intellectuals also raise their voices to be heard about the horrors that are being committed in Islam’s name, the appalling numbers of those kept illiterate in their countries; indeed, these same intellectuals issue warnings to the West . Their voices are not heard above the din of the West’s “intellectuals.” An Arab intellectual observed bitterly, that by ignoring these facts, the West’s “ high priests” are effectively relegating them to the status of “the white man’s burden”. Their suffering is of no consequence; much like how past “intellectuals” viewed the victims of Stalin and Mao.

Santayana observed:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

And the new “intellectuals” are doing this so very, very well.

stevenlmeyer: "And how did the university educated lefties justify their support for such monsters. Mostly they dismissed negative reporting about the Soviet Union or Communist China as "imperialist" or "anti-Soviet" propaganda.

How little has changed. Today the same university educated lefties call negative reporting on Islam "Islamophobia." They accuse those of us who point to the horrors of Islam of "demonising" Muslims and call us "prejudiced." "

Nice segue Steven. Perhaps you should consult TRTL's list of logical fallacies? Look up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", for example.

There is no logical or historical connection whatsoever between Stalinism and Islam. The connection that Steven tries to draw between communist academics and those of us who now object to Islamophobic ranting by people like Steven is tenuous at best.

Steven, I really do try and respect you, but you make it difficult sometimes.

I agree Danielle, to a point.

I understand that many Muslim intellectuals have a number of grievances, both specific and general, within their political regimes and with much of what is being done in the name of their religion by so called "clerics" and various extremist political organisations. I think we should listen to them.

However, I do not hear them calling for an end to emigration to the West, nor for the demonisation of Muslim individuals by calling them all potential child molesters and wife beaters, nor for a wholesale conversion of Muslims into the Christian faith. This does noone any help whatsoever.

What needs to be done is to stop with the antagonism and to address and support dissent with their own cultures on the specific issues, eg, womens rights with Islamic countries, and many many others. Shouting about how they are going to introduce Sharia law and they should all be feared helps noone.

Fear of the 'other' is what starts these atrocities, that is what I oppose, and it doesn't matter whether you are Muslim, Christian or Atheist, I will oppose this fearmongering and demonisation always.

Just to be clear on something, I do not support censorship. Therefore I cannot support the criminalising of Holocaust denial. Even people as manifestly out of touch with reality as Holocaust deniers should be free to have their say.

It follows also that I abhor Victoria's so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001." If ever a piece of legislation deserved to be called Orwellian this is it. It reminds me of the "Ministry of Truth" in 1984.

It is my view that when it comes to free speech anything short of actual incitement to violence, NARROWLY DEFINED, should be permitted.

"Narrowly defined" is an important qualification. Obama's pastor accusing the US Government of inventing HIV as an instrument of genocide against Blacks is inflammatory and tells us that the reverend's grip on reality is as tenuous as that of Jack the sad. But it is not an incitement to violence.

Here is an example of what I would consider an actual incitement to violence.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/24/2197660.htm

Quote:

"In the video, Bashir urges those in the village to beat up tourists that disrespect Islamic ways, saying, "If there are infidels here, then beat them up. Do not tolerate them".

Danielle, holohoax denial is illegal in Germany and Austria because they were the alleged culprits. Their governments may or may not have believed in the claimed events but were pressurised into adopting the illegality laws to avoid any accusations of being 'closet Nazis'. But why then is it illegal in Canada?

I agree that Hitler's diaries were proved to be fake. I have also read that forensic analysis showed that Anne Frank's diaries were partially written in biro. As Ladilas Biro didn't invent his pen till well after the war, what could that mean (if true)?

Steven asked sad ol' me why I deny the holohoax. No agenda. No conspiracy theory. I just read up on the for and against after visiting Auschwitz/Birkenau as it didn't look too convincing (in fact, Movieworld on the Gold Coast has more genuine looking sets - as does Sovereign Hill). Is that rational enough for him? I actually began my visit to the 'camps' beleiving in the holohoax.
And before he accuses me of anti-Semitism (another label for holohoax deniers), I have nothing against mainstream Jews, but their fundamentalists are as bad as Christian or Muslim fundamentalists.
Hey, I loved the Marx Brothers when I was a kid. I'm also a fan of Ben Elton, Alexei Sayle, Larry David amongst many more.