...is fraught with peril in Canada.pirapoi wrote:Speaking of Marc and Harry,
Brian_Esker is a made mad man.
...is fraught with peril in Canada.pirapoi wrote:Speaking of Marc and Harry,
pirapoi wrote:Speaking of Marc and Harry, I found this little incident that happened about 6 years ago -10-28-2003, 04:57 PM
"Hands off the Internet" Protest a Big Success in Victoria
On Sunday, October 26, a dozen supporters of the Canadian Association for
Free Expression confronted some of Canada's most outspoken censors andwould-be thought police outside a Victoria synagogue. The supporters of freedom on the Internet almost outnumber the audience of 20 who got to hear Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Richard Warman and Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre director Leo Adler.
Part way through the protest Dale Kilshaw a prominent local citizen from
an old Victoria family tried to enter the meeting. Challenged by Alan
Dutton, he said he'd heard this was an anti-racist meeting and wished to
hear the views expressed. Harry Abrams, a beefy local operative for the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith said: "**** off Kilshaw, you
asshole. You're one of Doug Christie's ass lickers." Abrams kept salting
his harangue against Mr. Kilshaw with "****" and its derivatives. All this
was said in front of Mr. Kilshaw's lady friend and several other women.
<a href="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=696304&postcount=1"target="_blank"> Source: Marc Lemire, Stormfront</a>
Ogopogo wrote:The latest from ARC:
"Isn't Lemire's close relationship with Zundel one of the things that the FreeDom folks have denied? And yet Lemire admits his close relationship with Zundel and doesn't dispute Zundel's court testimonial."
All in all, the deniers that day and that weekend seemed the most middling of Middle Americans. Or better: despite their take on the Holocaust, they were affable, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual. Their eyes weren’t fires of unapproachable certitude and their lips weren’t lemon twists of astringent hate. Nazis and neo-Nazis they were certainly not.
Nor were they antisemites. I’m sure many antisemites say the Holocaust didn’t happen (even as they take delight that it really did) but I met none that weekend.
(underlining added for emphasis)In the United States, thank God, we have the First Amendment. But even in that shuttered ballroom in California, the sixth speaker couldn’t say all he wanted to, couldn’t, for example, say the Germans didn’t kill the Jews deliberately. A few hours earlier, he and I had debated this at a waffle breakfast, debated it in audible voices with no qualms of being arrested, indicted or imprisoned by Federal marshals. "But what about Eichmann?" I’d asked him. "He wrote that Hitler ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. He wrote about vergasungslager, gassing camps."
"John. The man was in Israeli captivity."
"Well, what about during the war? Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, said to exterminate all the Jews, without exception."
"He was only quoted as saying that, John."
"And what about Goebbels? He said a barbaric method was being employed against the Jews. And Himmler? He said the SS knew what a hundred, five hundred, one thousand corpses were like."
"John, I don’t know. They might have said it. But," the sixth speaker told me, "it isn’t true that genocide was a German national policy." A few hours later, the speaker didn’t dare repeat this up in the ballroom, for he’s a Canadian citizen and he was carried live on the Internet in Canada and, if he said what he’d said over waffles, he’d have been prosecuted in Canada. Already, he’d been tried twice, as well as hit, beaten, bombed, engulfed by a $400,000 fire, and told, "We’ll cut your testicles off."
The man’s name is Ernst Zündel, he’s round-faced and red-faced like in a Hals, he’s eternally jolly and he was born in Calmbach, Germany. If you saw the recent movie about the Holocaust deniers, Mr. Death, he’s the man in the hard hat who says, "We Germans will not go down in history as genocidal maniacs. We—will—not." He, like every denier, has been called antisemitic, but it’s more honest to say that the Jews who (along with God) oversee the Jewish community are in fact anti-Zündelic, anti-Countessic, anti-Irvingic and, in one word, anti-denieric. The normal constraints of time, temperance, truth do not obstruct some Jewish leaders from their non-stop vituperation of Holocaust deniers. "They’re morally ugly," "They’re morally sick," said Elie Wiesel on the Public Broadcasting Service. They bombard us with disinformation, said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, on the op-ed page of The New York Times. "Holocaust deniers," said Foxman, spouting disinformation himself, "would have [us] believe there were no concentration camps." Myself, I disagree with the Jewish leaders. Most deniers, most attendees in their slacks and shorts at the palm-filled hotel, were like Zündel: were decent people who, as Germans, had chosen to comfort themselves with the wishful thinking that none of their countrymen in the 1940s were genocidal maniacs.
Add in the 2 years Zundel was incarcerated in Canada while being stripped of Canadian citizenship and deported.Peter O'Donnell wrote:I find this line of reasoning to be insulting to the intelligence of anyone familiar with what "unpopular opinions" Zundel holds. ... ... he is essentially very nostalgic for the good old days of National Socialism.LAR wrote:Zundel was deported to serve 5 years in prison for having an unpopular opinion. And if that's not enough, they think everyone who knew him should suffer a similar punishment.ARC wrote:"Isn't Lemire's close relationship with Zundel one of the things that the FreeDom folks have denied? And yet Lemire admits his close relationship with Zundel and doesn't dispute Zundel's court testimonial."
I believe you're mistaking the threat to values conservatives hold dear - even-handed Justice - to sympathy for the devil there Peter.Peter O'Donnell wrote:I can understand why the government of Germany has (ever since the war ended) taken an aggressive stance against neo-Nazis. They represent a threat to personal liberty in Germany, and I frankly don't understand the sympathy that some of the conservative blogosphere has for this man or these views.
Come on, be serious.Peter O'Donnell wrote:Frankly, I am becoming very disturbed by the gradual dissolving of barriers between these mainstream conservative opinion sites (like FD, SDA, Jay Currie) and the more extreme views of places like Stormfront,...
I believe that FreeDominion encourages one to present their own views, without reliance on seconding the views of others to lend gravity to the weight of their words.Peter O'Donnell wrote:Fascism is a different animal than communism. It may present us with some of the same challenges to personal liberty, but in my view (often expressed here from day one, not something new as some try to portray it) we need to be anti-communist AND anti-fascist in equal measure. That is part of being a principled conservative too.
Here I have to agree.Peter O'Donnell wrote:As far as I can see, just past some invisible barrier between the conservative mainstream and the far right, there is a sort of slippery slope that eventually leads into neo-Nazi terrain, and when you slide down there, you meet up with the likes of Ernst Zundel.
You are among the 'FD8', ze vell known 'extremist' element of FreeDominion.Peter O'Donnell wrote:Here's my final thought on this -- we didn't come all this way in the free speech movement to have it hijacked in the final stages by the extremists, and to have ourselves served up to the waiting plotters as Nazi sympathizers. At least, I sure didn't.
You know perfectly well that all and every aspect of Nazi Germany, when up for discussion on FreeDominion, is met with rational analysis - including the Shoah.Peter O'Donnell wrote:If people don't like my saying this, boot me out of here, because I've had it with all this footsy under the table with extremists. We have our own reasons to fight for free speech -- open discussion of important public issues, not some so-called holohoax and all the bad things Jews have done in some hoary old book that belongs in a garbage dump somewhere.
LAR wrote:Peter, I really don't know if Zundel is an evil man or not because honestly I've never paid much attention to him. For the sake of this issue however his opinion is as important as yours or mine. And I don't think the government should be persecuting any of us for expressing those opinions.
It's the right to unpopular speech we have to protect. Popular speech doesn't need it.
Gerry T. Neal wrote:Peter, for decades now "mainstream" conservatism in Canada and the United States have followed an unfortunate strategy of kowtowing to the Left on questions of race, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason, that we have lost so many battles (even on non-race related issues). The Left says that if they call someone a "racist", a "Nazi", a "neo-Nazi", a "white supremacist" or a "Holocaust Denier", that we are allowed to defend their freedom of speech, only if we also loudly, frequently, and publicly distance ourselves from that person, and condemn their views and their speech as the utmost evil in the world today. "Mainstream" conservatives, allowed the Left to impose these rules on us, obeyed them, and for this very reason, only now, 3 decades after it began, are we starting to see a ray of light in this battle for our basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought or freedom of speech.
Connie Fournier wrote:
Exactly! They also tell us that we must engage in shunning these people (most of whom have been unjustly labeled), isolating them and refusing to grant them the most basic human interaction, or we will be labeled as "sympathizers".
The ARA/ARC had an article after the Ouwendkyk hearing (most likely written by Warman) that focused on the fact that I shook Paul Fromm's hand.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest