| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: Jewish group applauds web censorship |
 |
|
(Yet another) Jewish group calling for web censorship:
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=5253
_________________
If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Don't worry |
|
|
But We've Already Got Self Censorship
Check out what's happening here: our very own super censor, Tony Gosling, has appointed himself arbiter of what can and can not be mentioned, here.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14360&start=0
It is:
Yet another ADL-manufactured nail in the coffin of free speech.
and you saw it being driven in on a website which contains the words:
& THE QUEST FOR TRUTH
in its title.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you read the rules of this site you would know that hate speech is banned on this site
So when it is said, as the article does
“Clearly a line has to be drawn between freedom of speech, voicing of differing opinions – and material that just incites racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence. When that line is crossed, that material ought not to be freely available to all who log onto the web.”
I agree
And if you don't, you are on the wrong site. If I were you I would rush off and find a corner of cyber space that still allows the incitement of "racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence" and get busy while you still can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerald Bostock
Banned
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | If you read the rules of this site you would know that hate speech is banned on this site
So when it is said, as the article does
“Clearly a line has to be drawn between freedom of speech, voicing of differing opinions – and material that just incites racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence. When that line is crossed, that material ought not to be freely available to all who log onto the web.”
I agree
And if you don't, you are on the wrong site. If I were you I would rush off and find a corner of cyber space that still allows the incitement of "racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence" and get busy while you still can. |
Do you agree with this statement by Hillary Clinton?
"To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult not only to the memory of the millions of Jews who suffered and died in the Shoah, but also to the troops of the United States and its allies who, in the fight to liberate Europe from Nazism, bore witness to the reality of the Holocaust." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect that by organising a holocaust conference which gave a platform to former KKK grand wizard David Duke and given that he has also questioned the 9/11 myth, the President of Iran may very well be a puppet playing a convenient role of associating 9/11 truth with "the most despicable bigots". Either that or he shows VERY poor judgement.
Allowing despicable bigots a platform at the conference was an insult not only to the memory of the Jews who suffered and died in World War 2 and the troops who fought in what they believed to be a just war (which it wasn't) but also to the proud people of Iran.
And similarly by associating 9/11 truth with holocaust revision I suspect that you and other similar posters may have similar nefarious motives. I can't help myself. It's my suspicious nature.
This is why Tony decided to effectively ban discussion of the holocuast on this site, which was long overdue IMO. So you may want to post on other subjects if you don't want a ban.
Apologies, if I've missed read you. Perhaps you were equally horrified to see something you obviously care deeply about (unlike me) associated with "despicable bigots" by the President of Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Hateful Speech |
|
|
Hateful Speech
| Ian Neal wrote: | | “Clearly a line has to be drawn between freedom of speech, voicing of differing opinions – and material that just incites racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence. When that line is crossed, that material ought not to be freely available to all who log onto the web.” |
I agree. What I do not agree with is that discussions regarding the accuracy of the accounts which lead up to a certain event, or the accuracy of the historical record regarding the many facets of the event itself can be classified as “hate speech” under the rules, above.
Please answer these questions: Is it religious intolerance to abhor the suppression of, and cruelty to women? Or are we required to stand back and say: “It is their way.”?
Is it religious intolerance to express horror at the decapitation or the removal of limbs for what some religions regard as sexual deviances: sex before marriage; prostitution, when it may be the only means of survival; entering into an adulterous relationship when a marriage becomes intolerable, because of cruelty and violence in a marriage that was arranged and performed when the woman in question was a child?
Expressing one’s opinion on any of the above could, under the rules, be construed as hate speech, depending on who was doing the construing. And it seems that you and Tony Gosling have set yourselves up as judges and jury on the matter of censorship, when I, and many people who hold similar views, consider that we have something important to say on certain subjects.
| Ian Neal wrote: | | And if you don't, you are on the wrong site. If I were you I would rush off and find a corner of cyber space that still allows the incitement of "racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence" and get busy while you still can. [ |
I consider the above to be hateful speech. You are suggesting that, because I am able to distinguish between real hate speech and fair comment, and you are not, that I should find a website renowned for real hate speech which does take the form of incitement to violence.
You and I know, and if you say that you don’t, then you are either a fool or lying, that the ADL, and organizations like it, play the hate-speech card when anything even vaguely detrimental is said about the actions of Israel; Zionists; the Jewish Lobby; Jewish control of the media; an individual Jew, or when the extent of the Holocaust and its root causes are brought up. Just like a book shop sells books, it’s what the ADL does. It turns any kind of criticism of Zionists, or Jews or Jewish organizations, including Israel, into rampant anti-Semitism.
It is not hate speech to seek answers to questions about historical events which are currently having violent repercussions on other human beings. Israel would probably not exist, were it not for the Holocaust, and the Palestinian people might still be living in peace with their neighbours, instead of being systematically ethnically cleansed by the Israelis, with funding provided by the United States, Germany, Austria and other countries.
Tell me, which is more hateful; that situation, or me mentioning it?
I would not go near one of the sites which you have hatefully recommended: implying that I possess the same hatefulness that those people have, simply because you are unable to see past your own bigotry. This site used to be able to cope with dissention and strongly-held views.
Now, this site, while still trumpeting the lofty slogan: “& THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, like Richard the Second’s England...
“Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.”
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: Never mind the truth |
|
|
Never mind the truth. It’s the subject, stupid!
| Gerald Bostock wrote: |
Do you agree with this statement by Hillary Clinton?
"To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult not only to the memory of the millions of Jews who suffered and died in the Shoah, but also to the troops of the United States and its allies who, in the fight to liberate Europe from Nazism, bore witness to the reality of the Holocaust." |
But what if Hillary Clinton had said this?
To deny the Official Story about 9/11 places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult not only to the memory of the 2,974 people who suffered and died in the Twin Towers, the hijacked planes and the Pentagon, as well as those who have died since, but also to the troops of the United States and its allies who, in the fight to capture Osama bin Laden and liberate Iraq from Saddam’s yoke, bore witness to the reality of the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the President of Iran held an international conference on the truth of 9/11 and then choose to associate the 9/11 truth movement with racist bigotry by inviting a former KKK grand wizard to speak from the platform then yes I would say this was insulting the memories of the victims of 9/11 and further this would make me seriously question his motives or at the very least his judgement.
And karlos would you care to show me where I or anyone else has accused someone else of racism purely because they criticise zionism or Israel? Not for the first time you are talking *.
But hey if you don't like the way this forum is run, throw your hats in the ring to run this forum your way. Set out a proposal and I will put to the committee. You are aware that the future of the forum is currently open to offers?
Alternatively those of you who find it useful to obsess about the holocaust can set up your own forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: Bigotry |
|
|
Bigotry
| Ian Neal wrote: | | If the President of Iran held an international conference on the truth of 9/11 and then choose to associate the 9/11 truth movement with racist bigotry by inviting a former KKK grand wizard to speak from the platform... |
Citing David Duke's appearance at Ahmadinejad’s conference is becoming a mantra, for you. What about the other delegates, many of them Jews, who took part? Has it ever occurred to you that the President of Iran may not be particularly well up on organizations like the KKK?
The more people like you protest about discussing the Holocaust—to the extent of banning such discussions on this forum—the more determined people like me will be to find out why this subject commands such protection, and why someone who wants to know more is immediately branded a Holocaust Denier, which is like saying that people who do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was either not involved, or did not act alone, then John F. Kennedy was not assassinated. That is also as absurd as trying to intimate that David Duke was the only speaker who mattered, at Ahmadinejad’s conference.
The roots of Zionism grow deep, and it is a matter of historical record that several Zionist leaders had a hand in making escape from Nazi Germany virtually impossible for a large number of Jews, because of the terms that both sides were trying to impose. Hitler opposed their re-settlement in Palestine, on the not unreasonable basis that he didn’t want to upset the Arabs, who were sitting on the world’s richest oilfields, and the Zionists would not budge: it had to be Palestine, or no deal. So it was no deal, and that meant that Jews died because other, wealthier Jews failed to protect them. Is that why we are not supposed to ask questions?
German Jews also pleaded with Jewish leaders, who, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, planned to announce an economic boycott against Hitler—a declaration of economic war—but their pleas fell on deaf ears. The boycott was imposed in March, 1933, and the wearing of the Star of David came into force as a way of identifying those who were, at least, co-religionists with those who had fired this first economic shot against Germany.
The Holocaust is the reason for the existence of Israel. Despite your accusation of racism, against me, the Jews are not an ethnically distinct race, they pursue various forms of a religion, much of which is based on a belief that they are superior to other human beings, even those who are, give or take a few letters in the human genome, genetically identical with them. They are The Chosen Ones, as opposed to Goyim: cattle—that’s you and me and all the rest.
Of course not all Jews believe in this superiority, but a lot of them do, and there is ample evidence to back this up. Currently, Israel, which has declared itself a Jewish state, is practicing apartheid and attempting to ethnically cleanse the land that was stolen from the Palestinians, so that they could settle there—after the horrors of the Europe—with the connivance of the victors of the Second World War, who had no right to disinherit anyone, in any part of the world.
You, I believe, changed the name of this forum to include a more generalised search for the truth, not a search based solely on the issues of 9/11. Now it’s “9/11, THE BIGGER PICTURE & THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.” What it should read is: “& THE SEARCH FOR SOME OF THE TRUTH.”
Although you seem to be accusing me of being a racist and a Holocaust denier, as well as being obsessed by that subject, I am none of those things. I am someone who does not believe that certain issues can be, arbitrarily, set aside as being “something we just don’t talk about.” Just as it does with innocent little children, that sparks a lot of interest, and there are some of us who have not been totally brainwashed, so we wonder:
WHY?
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://churchofnobody.blogspot.com/
| Quote: | This blog is about hypocrisy. It's about the gap between truth and representation. In a discussion of the sacred and the profane, which is to say that which must be said and that which mustn't, I merely ask why might a subject be profane, and says who? If one's prepared to concede that certain topics are profane it stands to reason that a mere discussion of the why and wherefore of that designation, is, in and of itself, profane. Proscriptions of profanity wouldn't last very long if everybody sat around discussing them all day.
Why are certain subjects so defined? Why may they not be discussed? Says I, we may not discuss certain subjects because were we to do so their false nature, the gap between their actuality and misrepresentation, would be laid bare. This is the only reason a subject is profane.
Who has the power to declare a subject profane? The answer is in the question, ha ha - it's the powerful obviously. Things are declared profane to protect a power structure. No subject will be classified profane to protect the weak or the innocent or those subject to the powerful. Not in this world.
Where were we? Oh yes, this blog is one-track and obsessed with things Jewish. The comment is itself an acknowledgement that one really oughtn't to be talking about such things. Which is to say, the subject is profane. Hmm... interesting no?
Try this easy experiment - discuss Jews at a social situation in something other than platitudes. Actually, don't - it's social death. Instead discuss any other group of people. Discuss Muslims. Discuss Roman Catholics. Discuss Buddhists. Discuss Chinese. Discuss Italians. Discuss gays. Discuss stamp collectors. Discuss the Country Women's Association. Say any goddamn thing about any goddamn people - except Jews. This is the profane subject non-pareil.
Somehow, miraculously, the obvious function of what is and isn't profane is turned on its head. Somehow we hold the absurd belief that we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish are the weakest, the most innocent, the most subject to the powerful.
Let's get real. What is and isn't profane is defined by the media. Control of the media grants one the power to define the profane. And we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish media has declared the topic thus. The power structure that is being protected is Jewish banking, the single most powerful structure in the world.
Wonder at the breadth and depth of the effort that has gone into this designation of profanity. The media, all of it, must sing from the same song-sheet. The other forums of discourse - educational establishments and houses of government - must also obey the rules. The staggering size of this effort is undeniable evidence of the fear of the power structure of public exposure. By their own actions they're telling us that truth and fearlessness can bring the edifice down.
Of course this blog is profane. If it was anything else I'd view it as intellectually dishonest, and chickenshit with it, ha ha. Not here. Not me. And not you either. The weapon to bring down those who would keep you enslaved is right there, waiting for you to grasp it. The weapon is truth. Only fear stays your hand. But it's their fear, not yours. It's been implanted in your head as a pre-emptive shield. In truth, it doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination, a delusion. To merely see it for what it is, is to cast it off. Between darkness and daylight; truth and delusion; fear and fearlessness, you don't need me to tell you anything. The answer is obvious and undeniable, and you knew it then and you know it now. A blink of the eye and you're there. |
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The boycott was imposed in March, 1933, and the wearing of the Star of David came into force as a way of identifying those who were, at least, co-religionists with those who had fired this first economic shot against Germany.
|
Just one question (there'd be others if I could be bothered) -
Why do you draw a specific correlation between the boycott and the wearing of the star which was imposed on German Jews in September 1941, eight years later? (though Polish Jews got it in 1939) Why do you ignore a plethora of other measures taken, stuff like kristallnacht and racial rhetoric levelled against Jews in the meantime in order to fallaciously suggest some kind of direct correlation?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why do you draw a specific correlation between the boycott and the wearing of the star which was imposed on German Jews in September 1941, eight years later? |
Could it possibly be because even though powerful Jewish leaders had declared economic war on Germany in 1933 the Germans were not actually at war? But that in 1941 it was deemed prudent to identify the enemy within?
| Quote: | | Why do you ignore a plethora of other measures taken, stuff like kristallnacht and racial rhetoric levelled against Jews in the meantime in order to fallaciously suggest some kind of direct correlation? |
Why should he mention every detail that occured in the 1930s and why do you accuse him of ignoring issues that you choose to raise and where is your proof that he is making a fallacious connection? Jews declare that they are at war with Germany and gradually Germans react with increasing hostility towards Jews . Whodathunk?!!
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Could it possibly be because even though powerful Jewish leaders had declared economic war on Germany in 1933 the Germans were not actually at war? But that in 1941 it was deemed prudent to identify the enemy within? |
Jesus Christ, I sometimes have to do a double take that there are actually people out there that come out with this kind of nonsense and presumably mean it. Rather than go into why Jews nmay want to boycott a country that had (all but) elected a ferociously anti-semitic nutjob (though Anthony is correct insofar as a lot of German Jews were opposed to the boycott. Some 'enemy within', eh?) and the fact the German economy quite clearly managed despite other problematic factors (you might want to check out Adam Tooze for a fascinating work on the Nazis from an economic perspective), perhaps you would care to explain exactly what threat Germany's domestic Jewish population actually posed to the Nazis?
| Quote: | | Why should he mention every detail that occured in the 1930s and why do you accuse him of ignoring issues that you choose to raise and where is your proof that he is making a fallacious connection? Jews declare that they are at war with Germany and gradually Germans react with increasing hostility towards Jews . Whodathunk?!! |
Oh of course I was forgetting - the implementation of a range of policies including expelling Jews from public life including the civil service, the arts and the universities, later pushing Jews out of private business, drawing up laws prohibiting intermarriage on racial grounds (not forgetting this concerned Gypsies and Black people too), buring synagogues, concentrating Jews in ghettoized areas, even banning Jews from usaing public telephones, all drawing on a range anti-semitic rhetoric clearly invoking a racial ideology that had been clearly stated right through the 1920s - this is of course all an obscure footnote to history and it surely really does make far more sense to arbitrarily link two events separated by eight years to portray the Nazis in a more favourable light and leave it at that.
The Jews, of course, brought it on themselves.
My apologies.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: Thank you |
|
|
Thank you, Blackcat.
Dogsmilk thinks that one should mention as much as possible, while making a point, and he does so, with monotonous regularity, then admonishes those who fail to do so. He has a great fund of knowledge about this and that, which allows him to waffle on, not just skirting the main issue, but ignoring it, completely. The examples I gave led to a single question, which can be distilled as:
Why should any discussion of the Holocaust be out of bounds?
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely brilliant post Blackcat (long article above). Thank you.
| ian neal wrote: |
And similarly by associating 9/11 truth with holocaust revision I suspect that you and other similar posters may have similar nefarious motives. I can't help myself. It's my suspicious nature.
|
Shall we speculate about your motives?
Some of us have been trying to keep this disagreement civil.
People who arguing the case against you are not interested in 'obsessing' about the holocaust, although I do think we should be allowed to respond intelligently when people who hate this movement come on here and accuse us ......
........although we might possibly obsess about why discussion of any topic is forbidden on a 9/11 forum.
I take offense at your suggestion that we go away and discuss these matters with like-minded types, white supremacists, British nationalists or whatever.
You seem to think that stating obvious, if hard, truths is the consequence of a vicious racist mindset.
In fact these comments are made in reaction to murderous evil realities and those other realities (taboos) that play an important part in keeping the unholy bandwagon rolling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the xymphora blogspot:
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Know your real enemies, and act
Predictable pathetic attempt from the Ottawa Citizen (owned by what type of Billionaire?) to explain why the Toronto 18 case is completely falling apart. Always remember that the entire point of all these cases is to convince people living in Western democracies that they share with Israel an imminent danger from 'Islamofascists'. Thus we should all sign on to Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror' - I keep stressing whose war this is as we can never forget that it was invented in an Israeli think tank in the late 80s - and allow Israel to kill Arabs and steal their land and water. Hundreds of years of the development of the protection of human rights, including the presumption of innocence and the need to have a smidgen of evidence before we ruin lives, is all to be thrown out the door so the highest representatives of the Tribe can have their fun.
To sum up the Toronto 18 case, there were 17 young Muslim men, who liked to play paintball in the woods, one older guy (the Osama bin Laden figure), and two agents provocateurs. The charges have now been dropped against the older guy, leaving the paintballers and the government agents. One of the government agents, a controversial fellow (always remembering 'innocent until proven guilty'!), claims to have been paid a considerable amount of money for his efforts, and the other, an agricultural engineer, appears to have come up with the fertilizer which constitutes the entire basis of the terrorism case. It is well past the time to let all these victims of injustice go, and start disciplining - preferably by firing - the police and prosecutors involved in this travesty. Those officials who leaked information to the public in order to try the case by innuendo should be tracked down and prosecuted.
It is about time that Canadians, and others, discover who their real enemies are. One of the many reasons I am so hard on Zionism is that it constitutes a serious threat to everybody in the world, whether through wars or the destruction of civil rights. To give just another example: the single main threat to free speech in the West concerns efforts by Zionists to stop discussion of the many wrongs committed by Israel. People who continue to rely on political correctness to dodge the real issues here are morally responsible for the real harm that is being done to real people.
......political correctness kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | a racial ideology that had been clearly stated right through the 1920s |
Oh come come! The racist ideology of a Jewish state was being clearly stated well before the 1920s. They even got the Balfour Declaration before the 1920s. You know - the one where Britain co-operates with the establishment of a Racist state in Palestine if influential Jewish leaders help to flatten Germany. "A land without people for people without a land". Shame about the few million Palestinians there!!!! Oh I forgot - powerful Jews were totally innocent and did nothing to cause Germans to turn on those of Jewish descent or religion. My apologies. They were just anti-semitic for no reason at all. Shame the 99% of totally Innocent Jews get slaughtered for the actions of a few powerful ones but that seems to be the way of the world. A million Iraqis dead because Saddam Hussein and a few others are allegedly bast@rds. Thousands of US troops dead and tens of thousands maimed because Bush and his cabal are insane megalomaniacs. Still - that's happening now and they aren't Jews so its unimportant. Maybe when the Jewish dominated US government slaughters a million innocent Iranians in another unnecessary and unprovoked war you will have some comment to make Dogsmilk. Or do you have some way of flagging posts which mention the "Holocaust" and only bother with those?
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr nice
Validated Poster
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Location: In a camper
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ......political correctness kills. |
nice post kbo234!
I have been away for a about 8 weeks and was dismayed upon my return to see CENSORSHIP being enforced by the forum admin  
political correctness serves no purpose in debate other than allowing any group a get out of jail free card if they find the truth is boxing them into a corner.
Abusive racism must of course not be tolerated but the definition of what is racist needs to be arrived at in a clear unemotional way.
_________________
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: Thank you |
|
|
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | Thank you, Blackcat.
Dogsmilk thinks that one should mention as much as possible, while making a point, and he does so, with monotonous regularity, then admonishes those who fail to do so. He has a great fund of knowledge about this and that, which allows him to waffle on, not just skirting the main issue, but ignoring it, completely. The examples I gave led to a single question, which can be distilled as:
Why should any discussion of the Holocaust be out of bounds? |
Well I've never said it should be out of bounds have I? I have repeatedly pointed out the inevitable consequences.
I have previously pointed out that Holocaust denial will discredit this site (and that statement of the bleeding obvious has been interpreted as a call for censorship before now) and it is doing so right now. It wouldn't be so bad if that was a clear part of the site's remit, but a very vocal little clique appears absolutely determined to stain everybody with their nonsense. Thanks for that.
It wouldn't be so bad if you were right. But you're not.
I realise you think if people don't want a particular issue on the site that means it must be true, but I guess you're probably too old to start learning logic now.
While you're talking about avoiding issues, I suggested a very practical solution to you yesterday, but you've totally ignored it. I suppose this particular forum has to be exactly what Mr Lawson wants it to be or he'll scream and scream until he makes himself sick.
I also just put to you a single point which you have also failed to answer, but instead congratulate blackcat for talking some more sh!te on your behalf. Typical.
And I don't have a great fund of knowledge. Far from it. It just seems that way because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Anyway, reckon I'll be off until this blows over (unless I change my mind for whatever reason). I'll let you carry on being all indignant.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | a racial ideology that had been clearly stated right through the 1920s |
Oh come come! The racist ideology of a Jewish state was being clearly stated well before the 1920s. They even got the Balfour Declaration before the 1920s. You know - the one where Britain co-operates with the establishment of a Racist state in Palestine if influential Jewish leaders help to flatten Germany. "A land without people for people without a land". Shame about the few million Palestinians there!!!! Oh I forgot - powerful Jews were totally innocent and did nothing to cause Germans to turn on those of Jewish descent or religion. My apologies. They were just anti-semitic for no reason at all. Shame the 99% of totally Innocent Jews get slaughtered for the actions of a few powerful ones but that seems to be the way of the world. A million Iraqis dead because Saddam Hussein and a few others are allegedly bast@rds. Thousands of US troops dead and tens of thousands maimed because Bush and his cabal are insane megalomaniacs. Still - that's happening now and they aren't Jews so its unimportant. Maybe when the Jewish dominated US government slaughters a million innocent Iranians in another unnecessary and unprovoked war you will have some comment to make Dogsmilk. Or do you have some way of flagging posts which mention the "Holocaust" and only bother with those? |
And the point of this is...?
Are you actually suggesting Hitler and the Nazis were anti-semites specifically because of Zionism? Is the weather nice on your planet at this time of year? If you are, evidence this assertion. The Nazis didn't like Jews. Period. And the ideas they drew on weren't brand new by any stretch of the imagination. The Zionists were the only group they actually engaged into a level of cooperation with for a while with the Havaara (you got to emigrate without having all your stuff ripped off) because they both wanted Jews out of Germany whereas the majority of German Jews viewed themselves as Germans first and foremost.
And the relevance of the Gulf War is...?
Please explain this apparent justification the Nazis had for their actions.
I mean -
| Quote: | | Oh I forgot - powerful Jews were totally innocent and did nothing to cause Germans to turn on those of Jewish descent or religion. |
So how did the Jews cause the Nazis to turn on them?
And what on earth are you trying to make out of the Balfour declaration?
Just what on earth are you gibbering on about?
I find your post so incoherent I confess I'm actually struggling to understand what you're getting at.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Please explain this apparent justification the Nazis had for their actions. |
Oh it was a justification was it? Not a possible explanation of retaliation. You really are a card Dogsmilk! I can't be bothered with the rest of it. You are obviously so well versed in this nonsense you can go on forever. And frequently do.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=162281
| Quote: | French Radio pulls plug on Faurisson interview
By: atheo on: 20.04.2008 [00:47 ] (332 reads)
A great “thank you” goes to Fred Scrooby who undertook the translation of this interview.
April 18, 2008
(24713 bytes) [c]
Self-censorship at Radio Courtoisie (Paris) “Radio Courtesy”
1) Statement by “Bocage” (April 11, 2008)
It was in greatest secrecy that Martin Peltier had invited Professor Faurisson to be on his monthly radio show’s April 9 broadcast on Radio Courtoisie. Both men had agreed to avoid any violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law, not just to keep from being prosecuted themselves, but to keep from jeopardizing the radio station which, they knew, was under surveillance by the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) Superior Audiovisual Council.
The program began at 7:30 PM. The two participants, extremely careful not to violate the Gayssot Law, told of the persecutions which revisionists the world over have been subjected to. (Any interested readers can request a transcript of the broadcast.) But at about 27 minutes into the interview the broadcast was silenced … The immediate reason given was, “It is being terminated at the CSA’s request.”
Now, here’s what appeared at the website of the daily newspaper Le Parisien at 10:30 that evening:
STRANGE SILENCE AT RADIO COURTOISIE
Brutal interruption of Wednesday evening’s programming at Radio Courtoisie
As the station, which bills itself as “the all-conservative radio station,” was broadcasting a program on revisionism, transmission suddenly went dead. Without warning, the “Free Journal Show,” hosted by Martin Peltier, was suddenly replaced by classical music. The show never resumed.
As for the program by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP, which was to have started at 9:30 PM, it was rescheduled to a later date.
We contacted Henry de Lesquen, station manager, who explained the broadcast had been interrupted “by the government’s Delegate for Editorial Matters, who considered some comments expressed by one of the participants unacceptable.” However, he didn’t say which comments, or why the programming never resumed.
It seems not only was there censorship of the broadcast itself, there was censorship of the above article announcing the censorship, since Prof. Faurisson’s name isn’t even mentioned!
2) Here is the transcript (thanks to “Bocage”) of Martin Peltier’s broadcast on Radio Courtoisie of Wednesday, April 9 at 7:30 PM:
Guest: Professor Robert Faurisson. The program had been scheduled to run an hour-and-a-half but was abruptly silenced after 27 minutes.
Martin Peltier: Good evening, Professor. I have to explain to the listeners why I decided to invite into the studio someone who’s been prosecuted for law-breaking. We’re different in every way: you’re a university professor, I was never a good student; you’re half-British, and Great Britain is my pet political villain; you’re an atheist, I’m Catholic. Why, then? Well, there are reasons, some perhaps not so valid – for example, stirring things up is always fun, and there are also frivolous motives: you like Nerval and you feel Isidore Ducasse cannot be taken seriously, and that’s very good.
And then there are two valid reasons: To begin with, I think of the Gospel where Jesus says: Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40 Now, in today’s society “the least” isn’t the unemployed, or the illegal immigrant who benefits from the good will and support of all sorts of well-meaning organizations. “The least” is the revisionist, the naked mangy wretch who spreads the worst of plagues: that which affects the memory.
And there’s a second reason for this invitation: today we won’t be speaking about your ideas or your work, Professor Faurisson, because to speak of those has been forbidden to us by law. But the manner in which you have been treated by the media and government agencies is disgusting and shocking. One can very well understand that thoughts and their expression must be limited, must be guided — maybe it’s even desirable; does one ever know? But that a society which has made blasphemy a virtue and loudly proclaims its desire for unrestricted liberty represses “incorrect thought” with extreme ferocity is intolerable from the points of view of reason and morality, both. It is therefore necessary to denounce this situation specifically and vigorously: we cannot remain our whole lives prostrate before the diktat handed down by the powerful and the inaudible they impose. For the honor of the press and of the French people we must from time to time attempt to lift ourselves off the ground even if all we can manage is the tip of an ear.
So today we’re going to do history, a little history of revisionism. There will be absolutely no justifying of any claims whatsoever, only telling what has happened.
With that said, let’s be clear that we are not going to talk about the gas chambers! The 1990 Gayssot Law forbids debate on the subject of “crime against humanity” as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. And unless I’m mistaken, it even forbids the semblance of debate.
What is the law’s text exactly? Can you quote it from memory?
Robert Faurisson: That’s right, this law, passed July 13, 1990, which we’ve come to call the Fabius-Gayssot or Gayssot Law, forbids debate on crimes against humanity as defined, judged, and punished in particular by the international military court in Nuremberg in 1945-46. But this law of July 13, 1990 has come to be interpreted in such a way that there exists today a body of legal precedent saying you have neither the right to debate nor, to put it simply, the right to merely seem to debate. As a result, anything, or nearly anything, can be interpreted as debate.
MP: Of course. And it’s there that — if I may — it’s no secret, Professor, that you have raised questions about the existence of execution gas chambers in occupied Europe under Hitler and you revise considerably downward the generally accepted 6 million figure of Jews who died during the Second World War. Therefore I won’t ask you to comment on this subject and if you happen to stray onto it I’ll cut you off without hesitating or showing you the least courtesy, I warn you. You are here under surveillance, in a sense — it was the best I could offer, and we will limit ourselves to three subjects that were strictly defined prior to the broadcast. Furthermore, to be honest with you, even without the Gayssot Law I wouldn’t let you expand on your revisionist ideas: apart from legal penalties enacted by lawmakers and decided by judges there are others, spontaneously applied, no matter whether applied quietly or demanded loudly: these are the pressures on families, the negative comments in the workplace, the assaults against those who think wrong thoughts and those who make their expression possible. There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history.
And the first thing I’d like you to talk about is precisely the persecution of revisionists in France and the rest of the world. You yourself were beaten up and left for dead by a bunch of thugs whom the police finally preferred to let go. You’ve lost your employment. Several legal proceedings have ruined you financially. But still, you consider yourself fortunate, because when all is said and done you’ve never gone to jail for revisionism. What is … how do you view
yourself where this whole business is concerned?
RF: To reply to your question: “to judge is to compare”; I compare my situation with that of many other revisionists, especially Germans and Austrians. I judge the legal system that has condemned me but I also compare it to the German, Austrian, Swiss, and British legal systems, the English-speaking Canadian legal system, the American legal system, and others — the Australian legal system, for example. And I feel I’m fortunate to live in the bountiful country called France. I’ll add that for me, the French government is fine when it’s not in a war or a civil war, overt or insidious. And finally, I must confess, I’m lucky.
MP:You’ve given a little summary of the situation. I’d like to return, point by point, to … Is … Exactly, one must teach. Already, the story of the various persecutions. Can you tell us the true situation in the different countries? Can you say, for example, what the situation is in Switzerland? What trials of revisionists have there been, and what persecutions have they been subjected to? I’m thinking perhaps of Amaudruz?
RF: Well, there’s Amaudruz who at age of 82, I think, went to prison for three months I believe — and there’ve been others. I admit this is a subject I don’t like getting into so much, because bringing up the persecutions revisionists have been subjected to is a way of complaining. The question is to learn whether, at bottom, we are right or not — but on that subject you’ve forbidden me to speak.
MP: Absolutely. On that I’m very clear. But by definition, one can’t speak of things one can’t speak of. It’s a tautology. But I love tautologies: they’re my favorite sport. And so I think it is nevertheless interesting — you don’t wish to speak about it but I want to make you talk about it because I believe the public, even the educated public, doesn’t … you, you’re immersed in it, a bit like Obélix, since you were small but the broad public, even educated, even informed, has not appreciated the extreme … I won’t say severity, but the extreme bizarreness of criminal penalties imposed on several individuals. All right, let’s look at Austria. I have two cases I’d like you to talk about: the case of Mr. Honsik and that of Mr. Frölich. I don’t ask you to talk about them for hours, but in two minutes you can do it justice — go ahead.
RF: Gerd Honsik is indeed a revisionist, who lives in Vienna; he was convicted of revisionism; he fled to Spain and, not long ago, Spain extradited him to Austria and so Honsik is in jail.
MP: They extradite people charged with that?
RF: They do!
MP: It’s a misdemeanor or a felony? It’s got to be a misdemeanor, no?
RF: Well, “misdemeanor” or “felony,” it all depends, doesn’t it; for example, in Anglo-Saxon law one speaks of “crime,” which can include misdemeanors; it’s a question of vocabulary — no matter. The fact, the important fact — you are right to underline it — is that they succeeded in extraditing someone. Now, in this regard, I’ll continue therefore to respond, since you spoke of Honsik but also of Frölich; I’ll quickly mention Frölich then I’ll come back to this business of extradition because, you’re right, it’s important. Frölich is an expert in gas chambers that are used for disinfecting, and he said the Nazi gas chambers were, in his judgment, impossible because …
MP: Yes but, there we’re really …
RF: Wait … that’s it. Therefore, for being a revisionist he was convicted and, I believe, has been sentenced to something like six years and five months in prison.
MP: OK.
RF: Getting back to the question of extradition. You know, they stress that France has laws against revisionism.
MP: Yes.
RF: It’s also the case with Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Germany obviously, and other countries. They stress that in the Anglo-Saxon countries there are no laws against revisionism. Pure hypocrisy! And that’s what I’m getting at with the question of extradition. Take the United States. It’s a country where, I must say, personally I felt free. It’s about the only country in the world where I felt free. Well, that’s finished. Because if we take the case of a prominent revisionist, Ernst Zündel, he lived in Tennessee and one fine day saw five burly cops arrive, put him in handcuffs, and take him to jail, whereafter he was delivered to Canada; Canada — listen to this — put him in prison for two years in the most abominable conditions …
MP: Meaning?
RF: Meaning: in his cell, where he froze in winter, had no right to a chair, no right to a pillow, no right to anything, was subjected continually to anal searches and intimidation with the use of dogs – they would put him down on the floor, and dogs – can you imagine? — drooling on him: that’s how he was treated for two years in Canada, then …
MP: A technical question, while it occurs to me: he had been brought to Canada from the U.S. on an international warrant, a request for extradition?
RF: Not even. Yes, there was a request; it wasn’t international: it was Canada who requested and obtained him, it was an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. So, the United States, where they have the First Amendment, where you’re supposed to be able to express yourself freely, treats a revisionist like a gangster using gangster methods. And he was handed over. And he was tried in a special court, I repeat, special, called the Human Rights Commission. And I know from experience what that involves, and I think the listeners will be interested in this point.
MP: All right, what’s a “Human …
RF: This: some said when, in 1992, Zündel finally won the unbelievable trials of 1985 and 1988 by a decision handed down in 1992, certain individuals — I won’t name them — said this wasn’t acceptable; something had to be done. They said we need the Human Rights Commissions. And the good people said yes. Then the legislators said yes. Then came the second stage — but wait: it would need human rights courts, not ordinary courts, and they created special courts where the judges are appointed according to how sensitive they are to a particular problem — I trust I don’t need to spell it out — and one is called before these courts — it happened to me when I came forward to defend Ernst Zündel. They have you raise your right hand, they have you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the next minute if you make the mistake of saying, “But Ernst Zündel has done nothing wrong because what he says is true, it can be demonstrated, and I feel confident I am able to demonstrate it,” the court interrupts and tells you, “Be advised that here, truth is no defense. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not what you say is true. All that matters to us is to know the pain you are liable to inflict on a segment of Canadian society.”
MP: All right, getting back to what you were saying – so, he was tried in Canada in this fashion …
RF: Then Germany wanted him, and he was handed over and tried under horrible conditions …
MP: A further extradition …
RF: A further extradition, and in Germany not only was he sentenced to five years in prison but they refused to take into account the two years he had spent in jail in Canada and, furthermore, one of his lawyers is now in jail …
MP: What’s her name?
RF: Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German. She’s being called “the German Joan of Arc.” And another of his lawyers is due to go on trial. His name is Jürgen Rieger.
MP: Wow, these people are busy!
RF: Right. But you know, if you consider the physical suffering inflicted on revisionists, this isn’t that bad!
MP: We’ll come back to that later …
RF: I don’t know how much good it’ll do …
MP: But at the moment we’re dealing with a purely judicial issue. There’s that case in Australia I think, a Mr. Toben; in Belgium there’s a former Vlaams Blok senator; there’s Costas Plevris in Greece … Apart from purely judicial questions, confining ourselves to punishments which are not brutal punishments or court-imposed punishments, there are disciplinary punishments or punishments by universities. I have in mind, in France, people such as Notin, Plantin, Bruno Gollnisch …
RF: Of course!
MP: Could you say just a few words about that? To me that does not at all seem insignificant.
RF: Take the case of Notin. For having inserted, in a genuinely confidential scientific review, a tiny reflection expressing skepticism to do with the question you do not wish me to talk to about, for doing that, Notin was put through hell. It began with the killing of his house pets: they killed his dogs …
MP: His cats.
RF: Yes, pardon me, his cats. Then they went after his wife, his children, himself, and then …
MP: Insults? Threats?
RF: Everything you can think of. To keep this brief I’ll tell you the outcome of his ordeal: his colleagues took it upon themselves, of course, to judge him and convict him. The unfortunate journal which had published his article got pounded: some people went around to all the libraries and confiscated every copy. Finally, he was unable to practice his profession of instructor at the University of Lyon-3; and thereupon, seeing himself condemned, and under the weight of a trial, he, well, had the misfortune of selecting a lawyer — who shall remain unnamed but who is not someone to be taken seriously — who had him sign a retraction. I should add that Notin — today he no longer hides from it, I believe — apologized to me for that retraction, saying he was advised to do it. It ended up serving no purpose: at one point, when he had hopes of obtaining a position abroad, and was under the impression he was going to get it, “they” found out and, naturally, that was no longer possible. It was to have been in Morocco. He finally wound up in Mexico and, of course, divorce: wife, four kids — finished. An example was made of him. Translation note: or, “And that’s one example.”
And you mentioned another case, that of Plantin. It’s unbelievable. Plantin was a very serious, prudent, reasonable man. He had presented a thesis defense at university which had gotten him a grade of “Very Good” from a professor named Régis Ladous. It wouldn’t be called “revisionist” but it did touch on it. Then the following year he earned another diploma. But that’s not important. Ten years passed. Someone remembered this episode, at a time when it had been quite a while since Plantin had been associated with the university, and no one particularly knew his whereabouts. Here’s what they had the nerve to do — get this, it’s absolutely incredible; I don’t think it’s ever happened before in in the history of the world yet it happened in Lyon, France: they concocted a fake thesis defense 10 years after the fact! What they did was oblige Ladous to come, they summoned Plantin — who, of course, didn’t show — and there they proceeded to pretend to do a thesis defense! It took I think 10 minutes; Ladous retired to deliberate, and came back declaring that the thesis, which had earned a grade of “Very Good,” now, ten years later, got a grade of … I don’t remember the adjective but it was something like “intolerable”!
Yes we have unbelievable examples. I’ll cite more if you’re interested …
MP: Yes, this subject interests me.
RF: I’m not particularly interested but if you are I’ll continue translation note: in the original there was some banter here between the two men, which I didn’t translate. Well, look what happened to me last year: a well-known Italian professor invited me to come give a brief series of lectures in the original there’s more light banter in here, which I’ve left out, and so I went to the University of Teramo. If you picture Rome, on a straight line drawn from that city to the Adriatic you’ll find Teramo. I went to the University of Teramo and, as planned, I showed up in the morning early. And what did the university president do? I don’t know if the like has ever happened before. Well, he closed down the university!
MP: That was very Italian. They can be very sly, because a solution had to be found.
RF: (Laughing) You seem to approve!
MP: No, but one has to have imagination.
RF: And then, what follows is interesting: well, we found ourselves a hotel where we thought we’d be able to hold our little conference, and there I encountered a group of Italian reporters. Italians, you know, can be very subtle …
MP: I’ll say!
RF: … and it’s only human. I found myself at the door of the hotel — which was refusing me entry — right next to one of these beautiful Italian town squares. The reporters questioned me, I answered them but not the way I’m doing with you: right off, I brought out my big guns, namely, the 60-word sentence which I won’t say to you …
MP: No, don’t!
RF: And at that point I said to them, “But you know, what’s happening here is amazing. Because in France it would be unthinkable for me to discuss this subject, more or less right on a public street, in the company of reporters.” I told them, “Or, so far! Up to this point it’s gone all right.” No sooner had I said that, than I heard an uproar — it was a particular group of individuals whom I won’t describe further, who’d come by train from Rome, led by a very brawny butcher’s assistant who threw a punch — and I mean a punch which could’ve been fatal — at the professor who’d invited me, and …
here the broadcast suddenly went dead “at the request of the CSA,” followed by uninterrupted music.
3) Message from Eric and Monique Delcroix to radio host Martin Peltier: translation note: Eric Delcroix, a laywer, has defended Prof. Faurisson in court against charges of revisionism
Dear friend,
It was a bit prematurely that we rejoiced at hearing your interview with Prof. Faurisson … Censorship of the most brutal sort, supposedly at the spoken request of the CSA, cut short one last illusion … And you had taken every precaution so as not to be in violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law. The predictions of the late humorist Pierre Desproges are coming true. One is reminded of his “Tribunal des flagrants délires” translation note: there’s a French play on words here which would be hard to retain in translation; the French means, literally, “Court of Outright Delusions”, where he has the court bailiff announce the prisoner as “Monsieur Faurisson,” eliciting the judge’s response, “No, not that name, it’s not permitted!” Soon we won’t even have names; we won’t exist. “Blow up”! Orwell warned us.
Best wishes,
Eric and Monique Delcroix
4) Heard on the news (Radio France, evening of April 12)
Martin Peltier has just received a letter from Henry de Lesquen informing him of the permanent termination of his radio program. To listeners who had called expressing surprise, Radio Courtoisie explained that the order to cut off the interview came from CSA. But it’s likely that at 7:30 to 8 o’clock PM the CSA offices are closed, with nothing working but phone message machines which the censors will play back the next day. In reality, the censorship decision seems to have been taken within Radio Couroisie by Madame Paoli, Delegate for Editorial Issues, after conferring with Monsieur Henry de Lesquen. In Radio Courtoisie’s favor it must be said that intolerance expressed through the media today is such that self-censorship is practically become a necessity. Martin Peltier forged ahead without reflecting; as a result he’ll be called irresponsible for jeopardizing an entire enterprise. “He should at least have asked other individuals than Faurisson to come and talk about repression of revisionism!” Which others?
Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP with views similar to Philippe de Villiers, was supposed to be interviewed at Radio Courtoisie at around 9 o’clock but he indicated that he refused to go on after Faurisson. Therefore he didn’t show up. For their part, Emmanuel Ratier and Alain Sanders volunteered to Henry de Lesquen that they didn’t know Faurisson was to come on after them. It’s unlikely E. Ratier will report anything about this affair in his next edition of “Faits et Documents.”
Breaking with usual procedure, Radio Courtoisie did not re-broadcast Martin Peltier’s interview with Robert Faurisson the next day. Further, it didn’t offer any explanation or apology to its listeners. It didn’t even acknowledge the significance of an event likely without precedent in its twenty years of existence.
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/04/18/english-translation-of-prof -robert-faurissons-latest-radio-interview/#more-6775 |
"There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history."
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Last edited by blackcat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Please explain this apparent justification the Nazis had for their actions. |
Oh it was a justification was it? Not a possible explanation of retaliation. You really are a card Dogsmilk! I can't be bothered with the rest of it. You are obviously so well versed in this nonsense you can go on forever. And frequently do. |
retaliation? To what exactly?
You can't be bothered because you know you're talking out your arse.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You can't be bothered because you know you're talking out your arse. |
The Zionist influences on the economic mess of the 1920s and the racial tensions of the 1930s are well known and include the refusal to allow huge numbers of Jews to be allowed out of Germany. Headlines in the zionist press such as "Jews declare war on Germany" aren't meant to increase harmony or promote Jewish goodwill in Germany. You are well aware of their shenanigans. What is happening today, the events of 9/11 and 7/7 as well as the current global economic meltdown, are heavily influenced by Zionists in positions of power, many with dual Israeli nationality. It is phase two and we are in their sights. The lies that led to war with Iraq were heavily promoted by Zionists in the US government and the attack on Iran will be led by the same factions. They don't care for you or I or Jews or Germans or Arabs. Monsters. It has happened before and it is happening NOW!
By the way - be as childish as you like and use a quote of mine as your signature by all means but remove your "conclusion" which you added about me trying to justify Nazism. It is a lie. Nazism is evil and I have never said otherwise. Unless you believe all Jews are saints then you accept just like all other people they have criminals and evildoers amongst them. I was alluding to a small group of powerful Jews who have used their influence to agitate and cause immense suffering. Do you seriously believe there are no Jews committing atrocities against Palestinians? No Jewish terrorists established Israel? Are THEY behaving like Nazis?
Perhaps you could substitute this quote from me instead.
| Quote: | | "A land without people for people without a land". Shame about the few million Palestinians there!!!! |
Nah! Better to just ignore it altogether.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | You can't be bothered because you know you're talking out your arse. |
The Zionist influences on the economic mess of the 1920s and the racial tensions of the 1930s are well known and include the refusal to allow huge numbers of Jews to be allowed out of Germany. Headlines in the zionist press such as "Jews declare war on Germany" aren't meant to increase harmony or promote Jewish goodwill in Germany. You are well aware of their shenanigans. What is happening today, the events of 9/11 and 7/7 as well as the current global economic meltdown, are heavily influenced by Zionists in positions of power, many with dual Israeli nationality. It is phase two and we are in their sights. The lies that led to war with Iraq were heavily promoted by Zionists in the US government and the attack on Iran will be led by the same factions. They don't care for you or I or Jews or Germans or Arabs. Monsters. It has happened before and it is happening NOW! |
What Zionist influences on the economic mess of the 1920s? How did they cause "racial tensions"? Be specific.
What refusal to allow Jews out of Germany? You're suggesting the Zionists controlled German emigration? Based on what? Since when did a pretty marginal (at that time) Jewish movement control emigration and immigration? Britain controlled emigration to Palestine and that was that. Nearly 800 people died aboard the struma because Britain would not allow illegal emigrants from Romania to enter Palestine. You'd think these all powerful Zionists would have opened the floodgates right from the off, no? Other countries had their own immigration controls. Are you seriously suggesting Zionists groups controlled the movements of all Jews???
Stop just reading stuff off the JewsagainstZionism website and believing it. I know they mean well and I agree with their viewpoint in a broad sense but they make some pretty inaccurate claims.
You are referring to a headline in the daily express. It is a tabloid newspaper. Tabloid newspapers like bold headlines. "Many Jews and some non-Jews call for economic boycott against Nazis" does not have the same ring to it. The notorious article itself is quite clear if you actually read the text that it is in retaliation to Nazi actions against Jews in Germany.
Incidentally, if anyone knows of a similar headline in other papers of the day could they let me know? I'm sick of the same one all the time. You'd think the daily mail would have done something, given they were pro-Hitler and all (some might argue not much has changed there...).
As far as I'm concerned, the issues of today are not just reducible to the evil Zionists. I am no fan of either Israel or Zionism but I find this reducing of everything in the world to being about Israel maddeningly simplistic.
But I do agree there are a lot of people in power who don't care about us.
By the way, you might want to check out the homepage of thecivicplatform (I realise you got the link second hand from the other site) and consider exactly who you're linking to...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=162281
| Quote: | French Radio pulls plug on Faurisson interview
By: atheo on: 20.04.2008 [00:47 ] (332 reads)
A great “thank you” goes to Fred Scrooby who undertook the translation of this interview.
April 18, 2008
(24713 bytes) [c]
Self-censorship at Radio Courtoisie (Paris) “Radio Courtesy”
1) Statement by “Bocage” (April 11, 2008)
It was in greatest secrecy that Martin Peltier had invited Professor Faurisson to be on his monthly radio show’s April 9 broadcast on Radio Courtoisie. Both men had agreed to avoid any violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law, not just to keep from being prosecuted themselves, but to keep from jeopardizing the radio station which, they knew, was under surveillance by the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) Superior Audiovisual Council.
The program began at 7:30 PM. The two participants, extremely careful not to violate the Gayssot Law, told of the persecutions which revisionists the world over have been subjected to. (Any interested readers can request a transcript of the broadcast.) But at about 27 minutes into the interview the broadcast was silenced … The immediate reason given was, “It is being terminated at the CSA’s request.”
Now, here’s what appeared at the website of the daily newspaper Le Parisien at 10:30 that evening:
STRANGE SILENCE AT RADIO COURTOISIE
Brutal interruption of Wednesday evening’s programming at Radio Courtoisie
As the station, which bills itself as “the all-conservative radio station,” was broadcasting a program on revisionism, transmission suddenly went dead. Without warning, the “Free Journal Show,” hosted by Martin Peltier, was suddenly replaced by classical music. The show never resumed.
As for the program by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP, which was to have started at 9:30 PM, it was rescheduled to a later date.
We contacted Henry de Lesquen, station manager, who explained the broadcast had been interrupted “by the government’s Delegate for Editorial Matters, who considered some comments expressed by one of the participants unacceptable.” However, he didn’t say which comments, or why the programming never resumed.
It seems not only was there censorship of the broadcast itself, there was censorship of the above article announcing the censorship, since Prof. Faurisson’s name isn’t even mentioned!
2) Here is the transcript (thanks to “Bocage”) of Martin Peltier’s broadcast on Radio Courtoisie of Wednesday, April 9 at 7:30 PM:
Guest: Professor Robert Faurisson. The program had been scheduled to run an hour-and-a-half but was abruptly silenced after 27 minutes.
Martin Peltier: Good evening, Professor. I have to explain to the listeners why I decided to invite into the studio someone who’s been prosecuted for law-breaking. We’re different in every way: you’re a university professor, I was never a good student; you’re half-British, and Great Britain is my pet political villain; you’re an atheist, I’m Catholic. Why, then? Well, there are reasons, some perhaps not so valid – for example, stirring things up is always fun, and there are also frivolous motives: you like Nerval and you feel Isidore Ducasse cannot be taken seriously, and that’s very good.
And then there are two valid reasons: To begin with, I think of the Gospel where Jesus says: Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40 Now, in today’s society “the least” isn’t the unemployed, or the illegal immigrant who benefits from the good will and support of all sorts of well-meaning organizations. “The least” is the revisionist, the naked mangy wretch who spreads the worst of plagues: that which affects the memory.
And there’s a second reason for this invitation: today we won’t be speaking about your ideas or your work, Professor Faurisson, because to speak of those has been forbidden to us by law. But the manner in which you have been treated by the media and government agencies is disgusting and shocking. One can very well understand that thoughts and their expression must be limited, must be guided — maybe it’s even desirable; does one ever know? But that a society which has made blasphemy a virtue and loudly proclaims its desire for unrestricted liberty represses “incorrect thought” with extreme ferocity is intolerable from the points of view of reason and morality, both. It is therefore necessary to denounce this situation specifically and vigorously: we cannot remain our whole lives prostrate before the diktat handed down by the powerful and the inaudible they impose. For the honor of the press and of the French people we must from time to time attempt to lift ourselves off the ground even if all we can manage is the tip of an ear.
So today we’re going to do history, a little history of revisionism. There will be absolutely no justifying of any claims whatsoever, only telling what has happened.
With that said, let’s be clear that we are not going to talk about the gas chambers! The 1990 Gayssot Law forbids debate on the subject of “crime against humanity” as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. And unless I’m mistaken, it even forbids the semblance of debate.
What is the law’s text exactly? Can you quote it from memory?
Robert Faurisson: That’s right, this law, passed July 13, 1990, which we’ve come to call the Fabius-Gayssot or Gayssot Law, forbids debate on crimes against humanity as defined, judged, and punished in particular by the international military court in Nuremberg in 1945-46. But this law of July 13, 1990 has come to be interpreted in such a way that there exists today a body of legal precedent saying you have neither the right to debate nor, to put it simply, the right to merely seem to debate. As a result, anything, or nearly anything, can be interpreted as debate.
MP: Of course. And it’s there that — if I may — it’s no secret, Professor, that you have raised questions about the existence of execution gas chambers in occupied Europe under Hitler and you revise considerably downward the generally accepted 6 million figure of Jews who died during the Second World War. Therefore I won’t ask you to comment on this subject and if you happen to stray onto it I’ll cut you off without hesitating or showing you the least courtesy, I warn you. You are here under surveillance, in a sense — it was the best I could offer, and we will limit ourselves to three subjects that were strictly defined prior to the broadcast. Furthermore, to be honest with you, even without the Gayssot Law I wouldn’t let you expand on your revisionist ideas: apart from legal penalties enacted by lawmakers and decided by judges there are others, spontaneously applied, no matter whether applied quietly or demanded loudly: these are the pressures on families, the negative comments in the workplace, the assaults against those who think wrong thoughts and those who make their expression possible. There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history.
And the first thing I’d like you to talk about is precisely the persecution of revisionists in France and the rest of the world. You yourself were beaten up and left for dead by a bunch of thugs whom the police finally preferred to let go. You’ve lost your employment. Several legal proceedings have ruined you financially. But still, you consider yourself fortunate, because when all is said and done you’ve never gone to jail for revisionism. What is … how do you view
yourself where this whole business is concerned?
RF: To reply to your question: “to judge is to compare”; I compare my situation with that of many other revisionists, especially Germans and Austrians. I judge the legal system that has condemned me but I also compare it to the German, Austrian, Swiss, and British legal systems, the English-speaking Canadian legal system, the American legal system, and others — the Australian legal system, for example. And I feel I’m fortunate to live in the bountiful country called France. I’ll add that for me, the French government is fine when it’s not in a war or a civil war, overt or insidious. And finally, I must confess, I’m lucky.
MP:You’ve given a little summary of the situation. I’d like to return, point by point, to … Is … Exactly, one must teach. Already, the story of the various persecutions. Can you tell us the true situation in the different countries? Can you say, for example, what the situation is in Switzerland? What trials of revisionists have there been, and what persecutions have they been subjected to? I’m thinking perhaps of Amaudruz?
RF: Well, there’s Amaudruz who at age of 82, I think, went to prison for three months I believe — and there’ve been others. I admit this is a subject I don’t like getting into so much, because bringing up the persecutions revisionists have been subjected to is a way of complaining. The question is to learn whether, at bottom, we are right or not — but on that subject you’ve forbidden me to speak.
MP: Absolutely. On that I’m very clear. But by definition, one can’t speak of things one can’t speak of. It’s a tautology. But I love tautologies: they’re my favorite sport. And so I think it is nevertheless interesting — you don’t wish to speak about it but I want to make you talk about it because I believe the public, even the educated public, doesn’t … you, you’re immersed in it, a bit like Obélix, since you were small but the broad public, even educated, even informed, has not appreciated the extreme … I won’t say severity, but the extreme bizarreness of criminal penalties imposed on several individuals. All right, let’s look at Austria. I have two cases I’d like you to talk about: the case of Mr. Honsik and that of Mr. Frölich. I don’t ask you to talk about them for hours, but in two minutes you can do it justice — go ahead.
RF: Gerd Honsik is indeed a revisionist, who lives in Vienna; he was convicted of revisionism; he fled to Spain and, not long ago, Spain extradited him to Austria and so Honsik is in jail.
MP: They extradite people charged with that?
RF: They do!
MP: It’s a misdemeanor or a felony? It’s got to be a misdemeanor, no?
RF: Well, “misdemeanor” or “felony,” it all depends, doesn’t it; for example, in Anglo-Saxon law one speaks of “crime,” which can include misdemeanors; it’s a question of vocabulary — no matter. The fact, the important fact — you are right to underline it — is that they succeeded in extraditing someone. Now, in this regard, I’ll continue therefore to respond, since you spoke of Honsik but also of Frölich; I’ll quickly mention Frölich then I’ll come back to this business of extradition because, you’re right, it’s important. Frölich is an expert in gas chambers that are used for disinfecting, and he said the Nazi gas chambers were, in his judgment, impossible because …
MP: Yes but, there we’re really …
RF: Wait … that’s it. Therefore, for being a revisionist he was convicted and, I believe, has been sentenced to something like six years and five months in prison.
MP: OK.
RF: Getting back to the question of extradition. You know, they stress that France has laws against revisionism.
MP: Yes.
RF: It’s also the case with Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Germany obviously, and other countries. They stress that in the Anglo-Saxon countries there are no laws against revisionism. Pure hypocrisy! And that’s what I’m getting at with the question of extradition. Take the United States. It’s a country where, I must say, personally I felt free. It’s about the only country in the world where I felt free. Well, that’s finished. Because if we take the case of a prominent revisionist, Ernst Zündel, he lived in Tennessee and one fine day saw five burly cops arrive, put him in handcuffs, and take him to jail, whereafter he was delivered to Canada; Canada — listen to this — put him in prison for two years in the most abominable conditions …
MP: Meaning?
RF: Meaning: in his cell, where he froze in winter, had no right to a chair, no right to a pillow, no right to anything, was subjected continually to anal searches and intimidation with the use of dogs – they would put him down on the floor, and dogs – can you imagine? — drooling on him: that’s how he was treated for two years in Canada, then …
MP: A technical question, while it occurs to me: he had been brought to Canada from the U.S. on an international warrant, a request for extradition?
RF: Not even. Yes, there was a request; it wasn’t international: it was Canada who requested and obtained him, it was an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. So, the United States, where they have the First Amendment, where you’re supposed to be able to express yourself freely, treats a revisionist like a gangster using gangster methods. And he was handed over. And he was tried in a special court, I repeat, special, called the Human Rights Commission. And I know from experience what that involves, and I think the listeners will be interested in this point.
MP: All right, what’s a “Human …
RF: This: some said when, in 1992, Zündel finally won the unbelievable trials of 1985 and 1988 by a decision handed down in 1992, certain individuals — I won’t name them — said this wasn’t acceptable; something had to be done. They said we need the Human Rights Commissions. And the good people said yes. Then the legislators said yes. Then came the second stage — but wait: it would need human rights courts, not ordinary courts, and they created special courts where the judges are appointed according to how sensitive they are to a particular problem — I trust I don’t need to spell it out — and one is called before these courts — it happened to me when I came forward to defend Ernst Zündel. They have you raise your right hand, they have you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the next minute if you make the mistake of saying, “But Ernst Zündel has done nothing wrong because what he says is true, it can be demonstrated, and I feel confident I am able to demonstrate it,” the court interrupts and tells you, “Be advised that here, truth is no defense. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not what you say is true. All that matters to us is to know the pain you are liable to inflict on a segment of Canadian society.”
MP: All right, getting back to what you were saying – so, he was tried in Canada in this fashion …
RF: Then Germany wanted him, and he was handed over and tried under horrible conditions …
MP: A further extradition …
RF: A further extradition, and in Germany not only was he sentenced to five years in prison but they refused to take into account the two years he had spent in jail in Canada and, furthermore, one of his lawyers is now in jail …
MP: What’s her name?
RF: Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German. She’s being called “the German Joan of Arc.” And another of his lawyers is due to go on trial. His name is Jürgen Rieger.
MP: Wow, these people are busy!
RF: Right. But you know, if you consider the physical suffering inflicted on revisionists, this isn’t that bad!
MP: We’ll come back to that later …
RF: I don’t know how much good it’ll do …
MP: But at the moment we’re dealing with a purely judicial issue. There’s that case in Australia I think, a Mr. Toben; in Belgium there’s a former Vlaams Blok senator; there’s Costas Plevris in Greece … Apart from purely judicial questions, confining ourselves to punishments which are not brutal punishments or court-imposed punishments, there are disciplinary punishments or punishments by universities. I have in mind, in France, people such as Notin, Plantin, Bruno Gollnisch …
RF: Of course!
MP: Could you say just a few words about that? To me that does not at all seem insignificant.
RF: Take the case of Notin. For having inserted, in a genuinely confidential scientific review, a tiny reflection expressing skepticism to do with the question you do not wish me to talk to about, for doing that, Notin was put through hell. It began with the killing of his house pets: they killed his dogs …
MP: His cats.
RF: Yes, pardon me, his cats. Then they went after his wife, his children, himself, and then …
MP: Insults? Threats?
RF: Everything you can think of. To keep this brief I’ll tell you the outcome of his ordeal: his colleagues took it upon themselves, of course, to judge him and convict him. The unfortunate journal which had published his article got pounded: some people went around to all the libraries and confiscated every copy. Finally, he was unable to practice his profession of instructor at the University of Lyon-3; and thereupon, seeing himself condemned, and under the weight of a trial, he, well, had the misfortune of selecting a lawyer — who shall remain unnamed but who is not someone to be taken seriously — who had him sign a retraction. I should add that Notin — today he no longer hides from it, I believe — apologized to me for that retraction, saying he was advised to do it. It ended up serving no purpose: at one point, when he had hopes of obtaining a position abroad, and was under the impression he was going to get it, “they” found out and, naturally, that was no longer possible. It was to have been in Morocco. He finally wound up in Mexico and, of course, divorce: wife, four kids — finished. An example was made of him. Translation note: or, “And that’s one example.”
And you mentioned another case, that of Plantin. It’s unbelievable. Plantin was a very serious, prudent, reasonable man. He had presented a thesis defense at university which had gotten him a grade of “Very Good” from a professor named Régis Ladous. It wouldn’t be called “revisionist” but it did touch on it. Then the following year he earned another diploma. But that’s not important. Ten years passed. Someone remembered this episode, at a time when it had been quite a while since Plantin had been associated with the university, and no one particularly knew his whereabouts. Here’s what they had the nerve to do — get this, it’s absolutely incredible; I don’t think it’s ever happened before in in the history of the world yet it happened in Lyon, France: they concocted a fake thesis defense 10 years after the fact! What they did was oblige Ladous to come, they summoned Plantin — who, of course, didn’t show — and there they proceeded to pretend to do a thesis defense! It took I think 10 minutes; Ladous retired to deliberate, and came back declaring that the thesis, which had earned a grade of “Very Good,” now, ten years later, got a grade of … I don’t remember the adjective but it was something like “intolerable”!
Yes we have unbelievable examples. I’ll cite more if you’re interested …
MP: Yes, this subject interests me.
RF: I’m not particularly interested but if you are I’ll continue translation note: in the original there was some banter here between the two men, which I didn’t translate. Well, look what happened to me last year: a well-known Italian professor invited me to come give a brief series of lectures in the original there’s more light banter in here, which I’ve left out, and so I went to the University of Teramo. If you picture Rome, on a straight line drawn from that city to the Adriatic you’ll find Teramo. I went to the University of Teramo and, as planned, I showed up in the morning early. And what did the university president do? I don’t know if the like has ever happened before. Well, he closed down the university!
MP: That was very Italian. They can be very sly, because a solution had to be found.
RF: (Laughing) You seem to approve!
MP: No, but one has to have imagination.
RF: And then, what follows is interesting: well, we found ourselves a hotel where we thought we’d be able to hold our little conference, and there I encountered a group of Italian reporters. Italians, you know, can be very subtle …
MP: I’ll say!
RF: … and it’s only human. I found myself at the door of the hotel — which was refusing me entry — right next to one of these beautiful Italian town squares. The reporters questioned me, I answered them but not the way I’m doing with you: right off, I brought out my big guns, namely, the 60-word sentence which I won’t say to you …
MP: No, don’t!
RF: And at that point I said to them, “But you know, what’s happening here is amazing. Because in France it would be unthinkable for me to discuss this subject, more or less right on a public street, in the company of reporters.” I told them, “Or, so far! Up to this point it’s gone all right.” No sooner had I said that, than I heard an uproar — it was a particular group of individuals whom I won’t describe further, who’d come by train from Rome, led by a very brawny butcher’s assistant who threw a punch — and I mean a punch which could’ve been fatal — at the professor who’d invited me, and …
here the broadcast suddenly went dead “at the request of the CSA,” followed by uninterrupted music.
3) Message from Eric and Monique Delcroix to radio host Martin Peltier: translation note: Eric Delcroix, a laywer, has defended Prof. Faurisson in court against charges of revisionism
Dear friend,
It was a bit prematurely that we rejoiced at hearing your interview with Prof. Faurisson … Censorship of the most brutal sort, supposedly at the spoken request of the CSA, cut short one last illusion … And you had taken every precaution so as not to be in violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law. The predictions of the late humorist Pierre Desproges are coming true. One is reminded of his “Tribunal des flagrants délires” translation note: there’s a French play on words here which would be hard to retain in translation; the French means, literally, “Court of Outright Delusions”, where he has the court bailiff announce the prisoner as “Monsieur Faurisson,” eliciting the judge’s response, “No, not that name, it’s not permitted!” Soon we won’t even have names; we won’t exist. “Blow up”! Orwell warned us.
Best wishes,
Eric and Monique Delcroix
4) Heard on the news (Radio France, evening of April 12)
Martin Peltier has just received a letter from Henry de Lesquen informing him of the permanent termination of his radio program. To listeners who had called expressing surprise, Radio Courtoisie explained that the order to cut off the interview came from CSA. But it’s likely that at 7:30 to 8 o’clock PM the CSA offices are closed, with nothing working but phone message machines which the censors will play back the next day. In reality, the censorship decision seems to have been taken within Radio Couroisie by Madame Paoli, Delegate for Editorial Issues, after conferring with Monsieur Henry de Lesquen. In Radio Courtoisie’s favor it must be said that intolerance expressed through the media today is such that self-censorship is practically become a necessity. Martin Peltier forged ahead without reflecting; as a result he’ll be called irresponsible for jeopardizing an entire enterprise. “He should at least have asked other individuals than Faurisson to come and talk about repression of revisionism!” Which others?
Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP with views similar to Philippe de Villiers, was supposed to be interviewed at Radio Courtoisie at around 9 o’clock but he indicated that he refused to go on after Faurisson. Therefore he didn’t show up. For their part, Emmanuel Ratier and Alain Sanders volunteered to Henry de Lesquen that they didn’t know Faurisson was to come on after them. It’s unlikely E. Ratier will report anything about this affair in his next edition of “Faits et Documents.”
Breaking with usual procedure, Radio Courtoisie did not re-broadcast Martin Peltier’s interview with Robert Faurisson the next day. Further, it didn’t offer any explanation or apology to its listeners. It didn’t even acknowledge the significance of an event likely without precedent in its twenty years of existence.
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/04/18/english-translation-of-prof -robert-faurissons-latest-radio-interview/#more-6775 |
"There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history." |
This has resolved an hitherto, unknown disconnect for me. Thank you Blackcat for posting this information.
I was well aware of Germar Rudolf being sent to prison since I read his book, Dissecting the Holocaust.
I was well aware of Ernst Zundel's successful outcomes in his trials in Canada, his extraordinary rendition and then his subsequent imprisonment in Germany.
But.
Still, I had little idea of the real effect of the laws on actual speech, when discussing the historiography of European Jewry in World War Two.
I had no idea that, in France the law was called the Gayssot Law.
I knew that several countries in Europe have enacted laws that prohibited any doubting of the holocaust, but, I had no idea, until I read the above, just how these laws actually affected the behaviour of people and the words they are allowed to freely speak, without fear of persecution.
I am astonished and shocked that a discussion might be judged to be a semblance of a discussion that might be construed as infringing these laws.
And yet, in Germany, your defence counsel ends up in prison for mentioning words that run contrary to that which is deemed, by the laws of that country, to be "self evident".
For the German crime of speaking words, in the defence of their client?
A radio station in France is turned off, after 27 minutes of the above dialogue, by the French government ?
11 days ago?
In 2008?
The truth is no defence?
After you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
This is insane.
How anyone can defend this situation is beyond me.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There can be no justification for what the Nazis did to the Jews of Germany but surely there must have been reasons why Germans turned on the Jewish people.
The dreaded 'anti-semitism' cannot surely be some kind of arbitrary abstract viral plague that affects humans with an irrational hatred of people who look much like themselves but happen to be of a certain race/religion?
Had not the Jewish banking and business people achieved a dominant position in Germany and when Germany lost WWI it was because the USA was dragged into the war on the promise of a Jewish state being created in Palestine. When America entered the war German war funding (and they had been winning this war) started to dry up and logistical support for its army fell away.
After losing the war the German people were brought to their knees by the Treaty of Versailles. Then thousands of German businesses collapsed and the remains of these businesses sold off cheap to whoever the banks were prepared to lend the money to.....very often Jews.
Germans felt betrayed by a group that had been allowed to grow and flourish within their country. They came to understand that it was the Jewish bankers (in Germany and beyond) that cost them the war.
In their suffering, they turned their rage against those they saw as culprits.....of course the big-time Jewish crooks who had created much of their problems had long ago fled the ship. As usual it was little people who suffered viciously.
Is their any truth in this version of history?
This is (approximately) Benjamin Freedman's version of the story and it certainly makes the Germans' behaviour to some degree comprehensible even if it can never be excused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: The truth is no defense |
|
|
The truth is no defence
| Mark Gobell wrote: | The truth is no defence?
After you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
This is insane.
How anyone can defend this situation is beyond me. |
Me to, but I’ll bet we’ll get some comments from Dogsmilk or Ian Neal, to cloud that issue.
It's the subject, stupid!
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
