A Nazi case of double standards....

So, what would you do if I told you the Holocaust never happened? Relax, I'm not the kind of fuckwit to ever say that, but if I did what would you do? In the case of the Austrian authorities they would arrest me, as right-wing British historian David Irving (that's him pictured) recently found out.

Now, before you jump for joy at the incarceration of this loon (he once stated that the slaughter of six-million Jews had not even been known by Hitler) think on this. Isn't the repression of Freedom of Speech fascism in it's own right? Whether we agree with the twat or not, isn't he entitled to his opinion? Are not the laws that have made Holocaust denial a crime in Austria since 1989 a little fucked-up?

Irving had been invited by students in Vienna to talk on the relationship between Joel Brand and Rezsö Kasztner (the Jewish leaders in wartime Budapest) and SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann, and his lecture would almost certainly have insisted it was the Jews who sold each other out and their fate was really nothing to do with the Nazi command. Okay, so this could be construed as possibly worrying - teaching a new generation in a pro-Nazi fashion - but when you take into account Irving's utter crassness and sheer twattery (quote: "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.") then surely the only thing he can seriously be a threat to is any legitimacy that the far right have.

The question is then - exactly how much freedom should speech be allowed? During the last UK elections a Student Union invited all the candidates in their area to do a Q & A session at their school. Of course, once the media got hold of this the Headteacher retracted the invite to the far right BNP candidate. Is this right? I personally deplore their fucked-up ideology, but shouldn't those students been given the chance to make their own decision? The result of banning that contact simply meant that the students were only exposed to the watered-down and more family-friendly mailshot, when they could instead have been able to ask the candidate more probing questions that could have exposed the wolf under the sheeps clothing.

Perhaps most worryingly for the online community was recent events in Singapore, where three youngsters were taken to court for posting racist remarks on their blogs. Should the authorities have taken that course of action, removing the blogs, or should the boys have been allowed to continue and suffer the backlash that they were already receiving? Censoring what they say doesn't change the fact that it is what some people think - in fact, censorship often strengthens the beliefs it tries to suppress. And having curtailed those boys activities, where does it stop? Because, let's face it, in many countries what I write on this page and what many of the other bloggers I visit write would be considered unsuitable.

Tell me what you think.... I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers m'dears


"There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS."

As said by that cunt David Irving again!