FRANCE: French far-rightist fined for Holocaust remarks - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Frank · #76 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I didn't see any racism or facism on his site.

Because there wasn't any 'fascism' or 'racism' on my site just some statistical reality and critiques of religious texts.

In fact I have temporarily cleared by blog entirely because one or two of my numbers require revision and my critique of the Talmud needs to be partially revised as well. At least my arguments are made in good faith and I am always striving to be as honest as possible.

The simple fact is some people view any criticism of immigration, diversity and multiculturalism as a form of fascism; when people cannot refute the facts some of them will scream 'Nazi' in an attempt to poison the well against the person they cannot refute.

Gort · #77 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I agree with you out of general principle. However, if the Holocaust had happened in the U.S instead of Europe, then you would also be punishing the people who are publically denying it and Europe wouldnt.

I disagree. Slavery happened here and we still allow groups like the KKK to exist and speak out. We just trust that educated people will see them for what they are.

Frank · #78 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesares

Just have a look on the frank's website... You will understand

Hey, it is not my fault that the consequences of third world immigration to western Europe has been one crime-ridden disaster after another; I just report the facts.

Gort · #79 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

If you did you would not have accused Dr. Duke of being a 'professed' member of the Klan.

I am not the least bit offended; I actually enjoy watching folks like yourself show your true colours for the forum to see...

And yet you have launched numerous unprovoked ad hominem attacks in my direction; I would hate to see how vicious you would become if something I believed did offend you.

Hell, Marc and Crystal would probably have to take you the local Vet to be put down!

You are the one attacking me on a personal level; I believe you are projecting your emotional state onto yours truly.

I believe in some cases your opinions have been accusations and those should be substantiated no?

The next time you make an accusation that someone is a member of a group or wrote book in which he 'tants' Jews maybe you should follow the example of posters who do substantiate their claims?

Hmmm the poster who has launched repeated and ideological-motivated ad hominem attacks against yours truly is telling me to develop a thicker skin?

You mean my exposing your false accusations is considered playing semantics?

You do not treat me with any respect because you do not like my belief system; your behaviour in this thread illustrates this quite clearly. Your excuses for your demonstration of hate and intolerance are weak, silly and simply foolish.

Look as I said there is nothing you can say that really bothers me. I do not take anything you say personally. You keep going back to the KKK thing and you know as well as I do that he still had the same beliefs, that didn't end with his resignation from the KKK, if it had his book would have been a whole lot different in tone. So in essence you are playing semantic games, and frankly since that is all you have I understand why you would resort to them.

As for the personal attacks you are a racist, or at least support and defend those that are clearly racists. That is a truth. I do happen to believe racists are in fact the lowest form of life on the planet. Just my opinion. You most certainly have a right to spout whatever nonesense you wish to on an American website, of course if this were a European website it would be different. I have the right to call bullshit when I see it, and if that is something that you are not prepared to handle then perhaps you are at the wrong site.

Frank · #80 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Look as I said there is nothing you can say that really bothers me. I do not take anything you say personally.

Why would you since I have shown you much more tolerance then you have shown toward me?

Quote:

You keep going back to the KKK thing and you know as well as I do that he still had the same beliefs, that didn't end with his resignation from the KKK,

You said that he was a professed member of the KKK which was not true; this little fact does cast some doubt on your claim that you call things as you seem them.

Quote:

if it had his book would have been a whole lot different in tone.

You have read his book? You declined to answer this question the last time I asked it...

Quote:

So in essence you are playing semantic games, and frankly since that is all you have I understand why you would resort to them.

Again, you made a false accusation and I corrected you; sadly, instead of being adult enough to admit to this you are reacting like a child.

Quote:

As for the personal attacks you are a racist, or at least support and defend those that are clearly racists. That is a truth.

It is still an ad hominem whether you believe it to be true or not. Tell me what is your definition of a 'racist?'

Quote:

I do happen to believe racists are in fact the lowest form of life on the planet. Just my opinion.

I think I gathered that from the repeated unprovoked personal attacks you have launched.

Quote:

I have the right to call bullshit when I see it, and if that is something that you are not prepared to handle then perhaps you are at the wrong site.

I am sure you would be quite happy to see me leave; I doubt these unprovoked personal attacks are geared toward encouraging me to stick around. What makes me laugh is you think that your childish display that one would expect to see a kindergarten class is somehow exposing my alleged 'bulls**t.'

Wallaroo · #81 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Hey, it is not my fault that the consequences of third world immigration to western Europe has been one crime-ridden disaster after another; I just report the facts.

And facts they are I can assure you, at least when it comes to muslims in Denmark.

Frank · #82 (**permalink**) 01-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

And facts they are I can assure you, at least when it comes to muslims in Denmark.

And that is the thing; I do not create reality I merely report it and base my beliefs on it. Oh and my blog is back online so feel free to keep checking it out.

I will be loading it with immigration stats my enemies will hate!

WarOnIgnorance · #83 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Show me where I advocated the 'Nazi' era on my website? I believe I have two posts that 1) Detail the Israeli hatred toward their Arab citizens and 2) Critique the Babylonian Talmud.

Is simply pointing out Israeli prejudice and offering a critique of a religious text promoting the 'Nazi' era?

You have conveniently stripped your site of all previous content. You're lucky I didn't find it in google's cache. You must have a very low number of hits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

And in the same post I mentioned that they were not worth the paper they were written on...is that false? Re-read my post; you will indeed see that I did indeed make such a comment.

Okay, from now on I will take it into consideration that you question your own arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Okay lets say Wahhabism?

While it's a reactionary and conservative version of Islam :

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://lexicorient.com/e.o/wahhabis.htm

Prohibitions:
1.No other object for worship than God
2.Holy men or women must not be used to win favours from God
3.No other name than the names of Allah may enter a prayer
4.No smoking of tobacco
5.No shaving of beard
6.No abusive language
7.Rosaries are forbidden
8.Mosques must be built without minarets and all forms of ornaments

COMMANDMENTS OF WAHHABISM
1All men must attend public prayer, salat
2.Alms, zakat, must be paid from all income
3.Butchers slaughtering animals according to halal must have their life styles scrutinized. It is not sufficient that they perform the basic rituals correctly

and I find much in it hilarious, still, to reply to your initial question :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Tell me if Belgium deported numerous radical Muslims out of the nation because they promoted a radical brand of Islam that did not live up to enlightened western values in the name of defending national 'morals' would you support it? Would you say no infraction was committed?

I'd say that there is no reason to be found in the prohibitions and commandments of Wahhabism that allows for a 'deportation' and that I would not only not support it but actively oppose it. You're free not to shave your beard or build mosques without minarets. Big deal. Religious prohibitions apply to the believers, not to the population at large.
Funny BTW that your first thought goes to 'deportation'. I've read that term before somewhere...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Actually holocaust denial has nothing to do with the topic of this thread either has Bruno Gollnisch did not actually deny the holocaust.

Negationism about the negationists ?

How would you actually know what he said since you don't understand French ?

If I post exactly what he said, you'll be whining that it's in French. Yet it doesn't stop you from starting a thread with a title of "FRANCE: French..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

I did see your reply and the only part that captured my attention was this...

You don't even actually read the entirety of your opponents' posts then. Good to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

I am sure the victims of Pol Pot, Stalin and Yagoda would agree with the good Doctor on that view!

They may or they may not. Who are you to claim they would ? Got any sources?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

I am aware the axe eventually came down on Apelbaum and Bronstein and I would not be suprised if your concern with Stalins victims was indeed limited to the Jewish population of Soviet Russia.

As usual, you would be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

However, I did not orient the discussion toward these folks! If you go through the thread again, you will see that I was not the one that brought these two up; you were.

You inferred there was some importance in them being Jewish. That was what I addressed: your anti-Semitism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Forgive the error; you provided an unreadable link! MUCH BETTER!

If you want to discuss events in France about Frenchmen, or refer to Belgian law, you might at least put in the effort of getting to know what you're talking about. There are things such as dictionaries and translation sites, you know. English is my fourth language (after Dutch, French and German) and I have no problem when a link is presented to a text in any other Germanic or Romance langauge. Use your brain and contemporary technology.

WarOnIgnorance · #84 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

And facts they are I can assure you, at least when it comes to muslims in Denmark.

Prove it.
And I mean prove it, not blogging some out-of-context nonsense figures as some do. Prove it in a scholarly fashion.

WarOnIgnorance · #85 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

WOI it seems to me that this potential exists whether you have outlawed holocost deniers or not. That simple removal of a persons right of free speech, and to make a fool of him or herself in front of the electorate, isn't going to change the potential effects of your parlimentary electoral system.

We have numerous political parties in the US as well, more than likely the same number as you do. But because we chose not to go down the parlimentary path they are of little consequence. SOmetimes that is good, in fact most times it is good because it keeps the really off the wall parties like the fascists and communists and greens out of power (and believe me these or the more sane of the off the wall American political parties), but on the negative side it also tends to keep new third parties from gaining any success like the reform party and also keeps more mainstream parties like the libertarian party out of the proccess.

The point is we have our own skelitons in the closet that we never want to see happen again. In our case it is slavery. Yet we recognize that the best way to deal with it is head on, not passing laws that essentially sweep it under the carpet. We know there will still be groups like the KKK that think the golden age was when salvery was in place. We also know that educating the public on tis is the best way to fight it. SOme of our children still grow up in families that are racist and there is nothing we can do to stop that. No law is going to make someone who is racist decide not to be a racist. However when their children see how society reacts to the beliefs their parents are teaching them that in fact does have an impact and they start to question those beliefs. If we forced then to simply shut up then all that would happen would be that they would pass on those beliefs covertly and since they were not allowed to speak their mind publically those children would never see the counter arguments society has ready to deal with these racists.

No the reason you have these laws isn't because of the horror of the holocost. Oh I am absolutely sure that has something to do with it, but I think it has more to do with the fact that from my persepctive anyway European governments have always tried to bury the things they do not want to really address. It is much easier to actually outlaw holocost denyers than to try and figure out what makes them tick and deal with that. So instead you tell yourselves Niemals and then tell yourselves you can simply pass a law to make sure that Niemals will actually happen. The facct that 60 years later these people are still there and seem to be thriving given your concern about the political situation your approach hasn't worked.

Sorry, Gort, but you're still missing two important points.

Firstly, there is no impediment on free speech. The American interpretation is not an absolutist dogma. It simply doesn't apply here. If the thug in question was sentenced under American law, then there would have been an impediment on free speech. This is not the case.

Secondly and more importantly, nothing gets swept under the carpet. The fascist political parties are all happy and free. The Austrian FPÖ has even been in a coalition government.

They get airtime, subsidizations like all other political parties, heck, their political propaganda is distributed by the national post office like it is with other political parties (unless the postal workers go on strike because they are expected to distribute that filth, as has happened on more than one occasion - If you saw some of that propaganda, you wouldn't believe your eyes. It's JUST like Nazi-propaganda, the themes, the colours, the lay-out, the whole thing.)

The laws in question are uniquely concerned with the Holocaust. Nothing else is susceptible to it. Not even other genocides (as FF doesn't hesitate to point out). So, I don't think you can say that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Oh I am absolutely sure that has something to do with it, but I think it has more to do with the fact that from my persepctive anyway European governments have always tried to bury the things they do not want to really address.

There is no slippery slope towards further curtailing of fascists and their political representation. Holocaust denial is the issue and the sole issue.

I sincerely applaud the near absence of fascists in US politics, but I don't think that is due to your more encompassing view of freedom of speech. I do think though that your skeleton in the closet extends to more than just slavery. The whole treatment of blacks in the past, up until the 60's, or maybe later as some might say, qualifies as such IMO.

The point is : what would happen if an elected official went on record claiming there has never been segregation or lynching in the US ? The question is genuine, not rhetorical : what would happen ? Nothing ?

Frank · #86 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Prove it.
And I mean prove it, not blogging some out-of-context nonsense figures as some do. Prove it in a scholarly fashion.

In other words Wallaroo he wants a sworn affidavit from Jesus H. Christ and Muhammed Q. Prophet to prove the point. WOI will not accept any source that does not present the situation in the light he likes best; I suppose I could be wrong but that is the hunch I have deep in the pit of the ole tummy!

Quote:

You have conveniently stripped your site of all previous content. You're lucky I didn't find it in google's cache. You must have a very low number of hits.

What exactly was on there that was so incriminating? Oh and by the way; I use meta tags that block archiving.

Sadly, due to oppressive Canadian thought crime laws I have yet again cleared my blog and I will consider revamping it when I escape this nation. However, I will gladly answer for any entry you believed was incriminating! Please let me know what was soooooo bad?

Quote:

Okay, from now on I will take it into consideration that you question your own arguments.

I merely question the worth of UN and European conventions that demand free speech and then allow for that right to be circumvented in order to protect society 'morals.'

The hypocrisy is not on my part but on the part of the UN and the EU.

Quote:

I'd say that there is no reason to be found in the prohibitions and commandments of Wahhabism that allows for a 'deportation' and that I would not only not support it but actively oppose it. You're free not to shave your beard or build mosques without minarets. Big deal. Religious prohibitions apply to the believers, not to the population at large.
Funny BTW that your first thought goes to 'deportation'. I've read that term before somewhere...

From Wikipedia...

Wahhabis see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

-Listening to music
-Photographs or drawings of human beings or other living things which contain a soul, unless you are the King of the country, where your picture is allowed to be shown everywhere
-Praying at tombs (praying at Mohammed's tomb, the prophet of Islam, is also considered shirk (polytheism))
-Invoking any prophet, Sufi saint, or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabis believe these practices are polytheistic in nature)
-Following or strictly adhering (taqlid) to one of the four madhabs of Islamic jurisprudence, "except for one who is under necessity and can not reach the Sunnah.[1]
-Celebrating annual feasts for the Mohammed or Sufi saints (see mawlid and urs)
-Wearing charms, and believing in their healing power
-Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship) - Bid‘ah

So what if someone who adheres to such a belief calls for murder of the folks who posted the Danish Muhammed cartoons? What if someone of this belief called for those who pray to Jesus to be executed? Would you support them being deported since they offend the western 'morals' of the state?

Quote:

Negationism about the negationists ?
How would you actually know what he said since you don't understand French ?
If I post exactly what he said, you'll be whining that it's in French. Yet it doesn't stop you from starting a thread with a title of "FRANCE: French..."

I am merely going by what the media source stated! As well Wikipedia offers the following and quotes it's source as 'Le Nouvel Observateur'

Bruno Gollnisch was condemned in January 2007 to three months of prison on probation and 55.000 Euros of damage and interest by Lyon's tribunal correctionnel on charge of "offense of verbal contestation of the existence of crimes against humanity, [1]," which is punished in France in vertu of the 1990 Gayssot Act. Gollnisch had held the incriminated verbal contestation on October 11, 2004, by declaring:

'I do not question the existence of concentration camps but historians could discuss the number of deaths. As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to speak their minds' {de se déterminer}. [2]

Again, I do not see any 'Holocaust-Denial' here WOI...

Quote:

You don't even actually read the entirety of your opponents' posts then. Good to know.

Considering that I tend to respond to my opponents point by point this is a silly comment to make; unfortunately like any human I am prone to mistakes and will miss things once in awhile.

Quote:

They may or they may not. Who are you to claim they would ? Got any sources?

I can no more prove that anymore then you can prove that holocaust denial demeans the memory of its victims especially considering that you do not have Romulan mind scanners to probe the brains of your countrymen.

Quote:

As usual, you would be wrong.

I highly question that...

Quote:

You inferred there was some importance in them being Jewish. That was what I addressed: your anti-Semitism.

I merely offered their real names but it is a point of history that Jewish-Revolutionaries were indeed vastly overrepresented in the highest echelons of the earliest Bolshevik movement. Again, I do not make history I merely report it.

Quote:

If you want to discuss events in France about Frenchmen, or refer to Belgian law, you might at least put in the effort of getting to know what you're talking about.

Forgive me if I do not bother to learn some western European language so I can read your links.

Quote:

There are things such as dictionaries and translation sites, you know.

So we are suppose to go to online dictionaries and spend days trying to translate your entire articles word for word?

Quote:

English is my fourth language (after Dutch, French and German) and I have no problem when a link is presented to a text in any other Germanic or Romance langauge.

Has it ever occured to you that not everyone speaks four languages around here? Personally, I am surprised that someone with your severe lack of debating skills is that bright.

Quote:

Use your brain and contemporary technology.

Oh okay; I will run out and learn three new languages tomorrow; I will get back to you when I am finished.

mpd8488 · #87 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Sorry, Gort, but you're still missing two important points.

Firstly, there is no impediment on free speech. The American interpretation is not an absolutist dogma. It simply doesn't apply here. If the thug in question was sentenced under American law, then there would have been an impediment on free speech. This is not the case.

Secondly and more importantly, nothing gets swept under the carpet. The fascist political parties are all happy and free. The Austrian FPÖ has even been in a coalition government.

They get airtime, subsidizations like all other political parties, heck, their political propaganda is distributed by the national post office like it is with other political parties (unless the postal workers go on strike because they are expected to distribute that filth, as has happened on more than one occasion - If you saw some of that propaganda, you wouldn't believe your eyes. It's JUST like Nazi-propaganda, the themes, the colours, the lay-out, the whole thing.)

The laws in question are uniquely concerned with the Holocaust. Nothing else is susceptible to it. Not even other genocides (as FF doesn't hesitate to point out). So, I don't think you can say that
There is no slippery slope towards further curtailing of fascists and their political representation. Holocaust denial is the issue and the sole issue.

I sincerely applaud the near absence of fascists in US politics, but I don't think that is due to your more encompassing view of freedom of speech. I do think though that your skeleton in the closet extends to more than just slavery. The whole treatment of blacks in the past, up until the 60's, or maybe later as some might say, qualifies as such IMO.

The point is : what would happen if an elected official went on record claiming there has never been segregation or lynching in the US ? The question is genuine, not rhetorical : what would happen ? Nothing ?

How is it not an infringement on free speech? Denying the Holocaust does not harm anybody. Period. It will definitely piss many people off and create anger and resentment, but because people are not allowed to say what they believe it is an infringement. Freedom of speech is about expressing opinions, if that is somebody's opinion there is not a logical reason that I can think of, nor one that has ever been presented that supports infringing on it. It is hypocritical to only allow speech that the majority of people agree with; that is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. It does not matter if a government does not acknowledge a right, every human being has the right to express themselves.

And as for your question, because we have free speech people like that are never even elected. Because we have free speech idiots will shoot off their mouths and people will hear it. If they then try to get into an elected position it will be quickly revealed and any hopes they have of winning would disappear. However, if somehow a denier of that sort does get elected and they later shoot off their mouth, everyone will hear it. The news media will sensationalize it and that official will be basically ostracized from society. He would probably have no choice but to resign, but if he didn't he would never win re-election.

Frank · #88 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd8488

And as for your question, because we have free speech people like that are never even elected. Because we have free speech idiots will shoot off their mouths and people will hear it. If they then try to get into an elected position it will be quickly revealed and any hopes they have of winning would disappear. However, if somehow a denier of that sort does get elected and they later shoot off their mouth, everyone will hear it. The news media will sensationalize it and that official will be basically ostracized from society. He would probably have no choice but to resign, but if he didn't he would never win re-election.

The interesting part is these oppressive anti-hate thought crime-laws do not really work! WOI concedes that America does not have a credible 'fascist' (Right of Lenin?) party presence in America; a nation in which these oppressive thought crime laws do not exist. However, in France where such laws are plentiful the so called nationalist 'far right' is gaining in popularity while 'racist' sentiments are also gaining in strength!

Telegraph | News | Le Pen and French far Right achieve record popularity

As well American-Nationalist Jared Taylor has exposed the serious problems with racism in Canada even in the presence of extremely oppressive thought crime hate laws...

Is Racial Diversity Good for Canada?

The lack of 'fascist' (Right of Lenin?) party presence in America may have more to do with a two party system with a virtual strangle hold on the political machinery of the nation then anything else; but I believe I have illustrated to a degree that hate crime laws do not prevent racism or 'far right' sentiment...at least in Canada and France! More on France...

BBC NEWS | Europe | One in three French 'are racist'