[whelan costen]

One other question I have is what the heck do you mean by this Marcarc? You said: 'But by all means start questioning who REALLY was responsible for the holocaust, just don't be surprised to hear from somebody lawyers..'<br /> <br /> Is that another law I missed? Are you serious? Is this your way of telling vive and its members that we are not allowed to ask this question? We are not allowed to discuss it? I had no idea.<br /> <br /> We will have to wait to hear from Susan on some of this stuff, but I didn't have the impression that the CJC told her to remove the other article. I also am not aware that they have that jurisdiction but I could be wrong. <img align="absmiddle" src='images/smilies/confused.gif'> <br /> <br /> But....not so confused anymore...just found this...http://www.rense.com/general69/disg.htm<br /> <br /> and so it would seem that most of Europe has laws which say you must accept the official version. This makes more sense now...perhaps this is why now all these years later we are seeing the US get on that story. In the west we used to have something called freedom of speech but now we can add that to the list of things from the past. So I guess I was wrong you can't think for yourself....ain't democracy wonderful!!!! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mad.gif' alt='Angry'>

[Marcarc]

I'm skipping over reading Dio's article because I usually don't understand him anyway and they have gotten pretty nasty. However, if you haven't read over the legislation about hate speech you should do so. Like I said, a guy is sitting in prison in germany just for asking questions. Nowhere have I said that its RIGHT, only that it exists and the site owners here will pay the consequences. And like many I'm an anonymous writer who can disappear just like Dio and others while Susan gets tied up for years in court. So like I said, none of this makes ME angry, it doesn't affect me one way or another. <br /> <br /> I don't know what the talk is about being upset or not getting fast responses or who or what this action jackson is. Like I said, its ironic that while you state that you should be allowed your freedom of speech to complain, but I shouldn't be. I have no power to change anything at this website, I have no power to stop people from making comments, and no power to shut down threads or conversations-far from it, even the moderators are saying that not only is the contentious comment fine, but they are joining in on criticizing the person who complained about it. So seriously, all I am doing is the same thing that you think is sacrosanct. <br /> <br /> All of your comments about culpability aren't the point. For the hundredth time, I quite agree with the questions of the vast majority of that post, howver, saying that zionists are responsible for the holocaust is something else entirely. You keep saying that I am inflaming it, but I'm not, what you are picking up is that the COMMMENT is inflammatory. And it is inflammotory because not only is it grossly untrue but it is grotesque. I won't pretend to understand the big long thesis, but again, that zionists may have done bad things or that jews weren't the only victims of the nazi's isn't what we are talking about. All those things are well known and reported all over the place.<br /> <br /> The comment blamed jews for the holocaust, its as simple as that, you can dance around it and say 'look at it in context' but saying 'zionists were responsible' means exactly what it says. THEY were responsible. Not that 'they were responsible for their actions, or that they were responsible for lobbying congress and political groups to minimize the situation. "Zionists were responsible for the holocaust". That is the comment that crosses the line, but again, that is just my OPINION, I can't stop anybody from saying it. I can, however, use my freedom of speech to complain about it. <br /> <br /> But most of that argument isn't even from the censorship point of view, its from the 'rules' of this website. I spent post after post defending the rules and the claims given for deleting an article only to essentially see the claim that 'we don't allow posts that make false claims, unless they are BIG false claims. You can't say that a jewish organization was involved in an assault, but you can say that the jews were responsible for the holocaust'.<br /> <br /> <br /> That seems at best bizarre, but again, this is all just my opinion. Nobody has blocked or deleted any of these crazy claims, so arguing about freedom of speech here is moot. If its your freedom of speech to defend claims that you state are simply 'taken out of context' its certainly within my freedom of speech to complain about it. Dio has a quote that says "freedom of speech is only freedom for speech you don't like" or something like that. So chalk my speeches up as speech you don't like and,well, you should be defending that too, not trying to silence it.<br /> <br /> However, you are right that that changes the conversation over to one about censorship rather than the issue. But like I said, I find the comment that jews were responsible for the holocaust to be beyond the boundaries of reasonable discussion so if nothing else I'm glad I could contribute by instead making it into a censorship issue. And I half expect a thank you from Susan since the censorship thread has turned into a 'chastise the complainant' and nobody is picking on her anymore. Your welcome Sue, glad I could be the mudscreen<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[whelan costen]

Just to be clear, the law that I read says it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, I take to mean that to diminish or trivialize or deny it happened - I have not seen anything that says you cannot question the players, the historical facts around the event. I believe that the author of the story is not denying it happened at all, but they are saying that others were involved. In fact they are holding certain people accountable for what happened, so they are not in any way trivializing it or denying it. I would think that would be something more people would want to know the facts about. Again I fail to see the hate speech in this article. Emotion yes, anger yes but not hate.

[Diogenes]

I too would hope that Marcarc were able to make distinctions and be aware of the subtilties of language<br /> Semantics are important <br /> and I quote<br /> "Semantics is importan<i>extremely</i> important.Your internal grammar has a number of interacting components, among which the semantic component is unquestionably the most powerful." Suzette Hden Elgin 'Success with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defence. that Marcarc has confessed he cannot understand me is an admission he can't be chastised for.<br /> <br /> The lack of reading comprehension is a serious handicap and now that I know he is so afflicted i will ease up on him as that id only right and proper <br /> I do get "nasty" when threatend. the solution is to not threaten. No cause/No effect.<br /> <br /> I have been banned for the sin od being "annoying" I had to make amends and apologise. <br /> So far so good<br /> If I am asked politely to leave by the site owners i will do so!<br /> <br /> There is no need to ban me to have me leave<br />

[whelan costen]

Well Dio, I would then wonder why you would be banned. I don't follow that kind of thinking. I also think that Marcarc has perhaps drawn a parallel between two articles where there is no parallel. I sometimes think that people can become overreactive and misinterpret and that may be what happened here. It is too bad that so much time has been taken up to debate something which really is a non-issue. No matter how many times or how many people look at the article and see that it does not say what Marcarc thinks it says, he cannot see it. That is unfortunate but it doesn't make it hate speech. Hopefully we can move on from here.

[Diogenes]

"Well Dio, I would then wonder why you would be banned<br /> I wus once banned here for the sin of being annoying <br /> look it up on the mod log<br /> This time I expect to be Drawn and Quartered <br /> Film at 11

[rearguard]

A few countries in Europe have laws specifically disallowing so-called "Holocaust denial" which translates into a law that prohibits the questioning of the Holocaust in a way that disagrees with the "official version" of the Historical account. <br /> <br /> Holocaust denial laws presumably are "one-way" in that these laws do not disallow the exaggeration of the "legalized" Holocaust account, but are specifically against trivializing the account. (see note 1)<br /> <br /> Furthermore, under Holocaust denial laws, the "truth" is not a recognized defense, because to defend against Holocaust denial one must willfully break the law, because one cannot help but break the law when trying to establish why the "legalized" version is incorrect when it is against the law to do so!<br /> <br /> It is noteworthy that Holocaust denial laws inherently proclaim what segment of society has the right to determine the "legal" historical account of the Holocaust, and presumably that means that the right to freely question certain aspects of World War II is therefore determined by law.<br /> <br /> In Canada there is no specific Holocaust denial law, however that does not mean very much since Canada's hate laws are so broad and ill defined that its application can be twisted into almost any form of censorship that is desired.<br /> <br /> For a list of countries with "Holocaust denial" laws, see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial">Laws against Holocaust denial</a><br /> <br /> For the full text of Canada's "Hate Propaganda" laws, see: <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318">Hate Propaganda</a><br /> <br /> When reading through Canada's Hate Propaganda laws, it usually takes a great deal of study to understand precisely what is being stated. The laws are written in a way that *will* deceive you. <br /> <br /> For example, here is the definition of "hate propaganda":<br /> <br /> <blockquote><i>"hate propaganda" means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319;</i></blockquote><br /> <br /> At a glance, the first part of the above definition may seem relatively well defined and perfectly reasonable, however what about the second part, which states:<br /> <br /> <blockquote><i>... or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319</i></blockquote><br /> <br /> Section 319 is very long and there's a lot in there to be concerned about, however I'll touch on only a few items.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><i> 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of <br /> </i></blockquote><br /> <br /> Pay close attention to the above, and read it a few times over if you have to.<br /> <br /> Hate Propaganda can be *anything* that you say in public that an "identifiable group" (see note 2) claims is "hateful" and in a way that <i>"is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"</i>(no definition available).<br /> <br /> Canada's hate laws are therefore not about genocide, and are not even about "hate", the law is about complaints from a privileged "identifiable group" against statements that are claimed to be disagreeable in some way.<br /> <br /> It is easy enough to "breach the peace" so long as the "identifiable group" is organized enough, all one has to do is organize demonstrations in the street and issue tearful media statements, etc.<br /> <br /> Under the norms of law, normally the burden of proof is on the prosecution, however in the case of hate propaganda, the burden of proof is dumped on the accused and <strong>specifically limited</strong> to the following lines of defense:<br /> <br /> <i><blockquote><br /> (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;<br /> <br /> (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;<br /> <br /> (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or<br /> <br /> (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.<br /> </blockquote></i><br /> <br /> Furthermore the prosecution of hate charges is a political decision rather than a legal decision, stated with:<br /> <br /> <i><blockquote>(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.</blockquote></i> <br /> <br /> The Attorney General is an elected MP, who is most likely much more concerned about his or her popularity than about the law! <br /> <br /> I could go on, and I could easily fill several pages of text describing why I think Canada's Hate Propaganda laws that are very wrong and should either be significantly amended or abolished completely.<br /> <br /> Notes:<br /> <br /> 1) I may be wrong about the "direction" of Holocaust denial laws, and if anyone knows more, please post in here - thanks.<br /> <br /> 2) No matter how "identifiable" one may find a group to be, the law limits which groups are legally deemed to be "identifiable":<br /> <br /> <i><blockquote> "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.</blockquote></i><br /> Everyone else is excluded, therefore you may hate fat people, skinny people, tall people, short people, round people, square people, funny people (etc). Just *do not* mention skin color, genetic make up, ritualistic beliefs, culture, county of origin, or what turns them on.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, the limits imposed allow the military arm of the government to legally hate the "enemy" in a way that "is likely to breach the peace" (i.e., cause mass misery, death, and destruction), although the claims of protection is often debatable, for example consider what group is officially being attacked in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a political group that is effectively a theocracy. A theocracy is a political movement based on religion - one of the "identifiable groups" protected under Canada's hate propaganda laws.<br /> <br /> In my opinion, the Canadian government should be prosecuted for hate propaganda, however that decision is conveniently left up to the Attorney General!!!!<br />

[Diogenes]

Excellent digging <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'>

[rearguard]

"Hate speech is against a specific race, there is no such thing as a 'neo con' race."<br /> <br /> According to the text of Canadian law, hate speech is limited to <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318">colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation</a>. <br /> <br /> Everyone else is sh*t out of luck, therefore the law is unequal in its application and is therefore discriminatory.<br /> <br /> Hate laws open up a rather large can of worms, especially as you add new categories under its "protection". For example, since the addition of "sexual orientation", it must now be against Canadian law to discriminate against pedophiles, and if you utter "hate" against those who are afflicted with the condition, charges can be laid (except that's left up to the Attorney General, ha ha ha).<br /> <br /> "And again, to say that George Bush was responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous."<br /> <br /> Hey, if Noam Chomsky says so, then that's good enough for me. (sarcasm)<br /> <br /> "but as I said, to come to the conclusion that zionists were responsible for the holocaust is so far out in left field."<br /> <br /> Not everyone thinks so, see: <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html">51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, by LENNI BRENNER</a><br /> <br /> "if you aren't a minority then you may have a harder time acknowledging the issue of hate speech."<br /> <br /> Where I live, I'm indeed a minority. Most of the people I see these days are of Asian decent, and most appear to be from China.<br /> <br /> "However, all I was doing is voicing a complaint, which is also free speech."<br /> <br /> I don't mind reading about your complaints, however when you try and work it so as to silence what you think is disagreeable content, that's another matter.<br /> <br /> "because if the lies and threats that are posted in this thread are allowed"<br /> <br /> Are you suggesting that only your lies and threats smell like roses, while everyone else's stink?<br />

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Zundel is currently in prison in germany for saying such things[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Zundel is in prison supposedly only because his website could be accessed from Germany and the German government considered the content to be in disagreement with Holocaust dogma as defined by German law. It is probably important to note that Germany is still occupied by the Allied nations, the most prominent nation being the USA, which so happens to be <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html">clearly aligned with Israel</a>.<br /> <br /> I recall you making the following suggestion:<br /> <br /> <i>"In fact I think his [Zundel's] books should be required reading"</i> - <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=26&showtopic=18228&mode=&onlytopic=0&show=5&page=4"> Marcarc</a> <br /> <br /> Oh my, what an offensive and hateful suggestion! <br /> <br /> So that you may begin your journey with teaching the words of Zundel, here's the link to Zundel's writings:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.zundelsite.org/">The Zundelsite</a><br /> <br /> In the random sampling I did of Zundel's site, I did not to see anything so terrible that it would condemn a man to serve time in prison, and it seems clear to me that Zundel is a political prisoner of conscience.<br />

[Diogenes]

I have no doubt that such censorship may continue, I plan on complaining about this 'Dio' persons latest addition, both to this site administrator as well as the CJC, because in my opinion that amounts to hate speech. You may disagree, but then its not your site. Which is too bad because its actually people like you that make criticism of Israel especially difficult because along with perfectly valid points Dio comes out with the claim that "it is the jews fault" for the holocaust. That clearly is hate speech to me, and deeply repugnant.Happily once I make the complaint it is not my decision to make."<br /> <br /> <br /> Marcarc is as Marcarc does...<br /> And what he does is use convoluted logic.<br /> But hey, that is OK because his claim is he doesn't understand what I write. Not understanding is, however, no barrier to false claims, ("it is the jews fault") notice the quote marks as if he were quoting my words, when in fact I said no such thing. Nor is it a barrier to informing The Canadian Jewish Congress.<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I didn't say there were stories like that on Vive, what I was saying is that there is a reason that the website has policies and rules for things they will not print, because otherwise there WOULD be that. The argument was about whether censorship should be allowed at all, all I was stating is a reason why it exists. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Your own words, posted 07-05-21 08:07.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]<br /> So again, from Susan and the owners point of view, what do you think happens when four stories on the front page and six forum discussions are on whether the holocaust occurred and how many died and who was responsible? [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> To recap it, just go read Susan's original post. <br /> <br /> Hate speech is against a specific race, there is no such thing as a 'neo con' race. </blockquote><br /> <br /> Zionist is not a race ethier. But Canada's hate speech laws dicern hate based on religion as well. If Zionists are (loosely) Jewish, and Neocons are (loosely) Christian; then hate speech laws apply to Neocons as well as Zionists as well as Jesuits and Buddhists . . .<br /> <br /> I never said there was no need for hate speech legislation, I'm simply pointing out it should be applied with an even trowel.

[Marcarc]

Equating zionist with jewish isn't the same as saying neocon and christian. 'neocon' isn't actually even a word, there is no 'association', there is no 'movement'. There are similarities in ideology but that's it. There isnt' even a standard acceptance of what it is. At the time of the second world war 'zionists' were a jewish political movement, they had leaders, spokespeople, etc. So if you were zionist, then you were jewish. No such definition exists for neocon, in fact a good many of those are jewish as well. I believe adbusters did a story that showed the top twenty people in the bush administration were overwhelmingly jewish. So 'neocon' would be more likely to mean jewish than christian.<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Equating zionist with jewish isn't the same as saying neocon and christian. 'neocon' isn't actually even a word, there is no 'association', there is no 'movement'. There are similarities in ideology but that's it. There isnt' even a standard acceptance of what it is. At the time of the second world war <b>'zionists' were a jewish political movement</b>, they had leaders, spokespeople, etc. So if you were zionist, then you were jewish. No such definition exists for neocon, in fact a good many of those are jewish as well. I believe adbusters did a story that showed the top twenty people in the bush administration were overwhelmingly jewish. So 'neocon' would be more likely to mean jewish than christian.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> First, 'Neocon' is short for Neo-conservative. The Neoconservative movement did change to a Christian based political ideology, when Gerry Falwell swayed his 'congregation' on how they should vote. The political term refers to the voters, not the candidates.<br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative<br /> <br /> Second. Note the bolded text. Canadian hate speech laws make no provision for hate based on Political ideology. Therefore the excerpt 'So, in a pivotal sense, the Zionists were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust' is not hate speech based on religion. It is a criticism of a political movement. This is no different than if 'Zionists' is replaced with 'Nazis', referring not to German Lutherans, but members of a political party.

[Marcarc]

Gerry Falwell is hardly a spokesperson for anybody but a religion, and even that is a stretch. Run down the list at the white house of chief decision makers and many are jewish so it is NOT a christian ideology. You can have buddhist neoconservatives just as easily, and you can have hindu ones. In fact, for 'family values' conservative ones aren't that far from many islamic ones. In fifty years you may be right and it may coelesce into a single unified political movement, but it certainly isn't today. In fact, apart from people who don't like them, I almost never see anybody saying "i'm a neo conservative". <br /> <br /> Hate speech is not simply a semantic argument, there's a reason that right after "The Passion of the Christ" came out that hate crimes against jews rose sharply. Preachers used to always use the pulpit before pogroms began. Again, if you haven't been on the recieving end of the stick it may all just be a matter of words. <br /> <br /> After the US began bombing Afghanistan or Iraq did people start vandalizing churches? Of course not. But again, hate crime comes down to what is said. THis wasn't a study from a historical publication or a history of zionism, this was a fellow who made an out and out false and inflammatory statement saying that the zionists were responsible for the holocaust. Not only is it false, but its inflammatory, and again, FAR more false and inflammatory than the article that Susan pulled. <br /> <br /> That, of course, is my opinion, and has nothing to do with censorship since I can't censor anything. I agree with Whelan about the limits of censorship and how it seems to be getting out of control, like I said, I fully supported Ernst Zundel and think that he got horrible treatment, but even he didn't say that zionists were responsible for the holocaust. And Zionist means jewish, you can go look at who were members of the organization and it is clearly a jewish organization. <br /> <br /> The fine line is that you may think a zionist is not jewish and so doesn't deserve any protections, that's fine. However, the statement in question wasn't even about that. To be logically consistent I find the same thing when it comes to canada. I don't think jewish people are under that much duress in this country, I have far more sympathy for natives, who are clearly a race and not only do people get away with saying the most hateful things about them, but they are far more actively censored by the medai-by simply not even talking about them. <br /> <br /> That Canada had its own attempt at genocide in the fifties hardly warrants a word, and the govenrment still actively acts to wipe out their culture by just about any means. The term "final solution" doesn't come from Nazi Germany, it comes from a Canadian Indian Affairs agent. With the native population being the only 'native' one growing, we may well find Canada turning into an Israel-Palestine, the only thing preventing it so far is the peaceful nature of the natives. However, the palestinians were always peaceful, but at some point every culture fights back. So for being 'upset' like I said, I don't worry too much about arguments about the holocaust, that was fifty years ago. I find it abhorent that people can blame jews for the holocaust, and I find it equally abhorrent that people blame natives for their genocide-and I would complain about it, as is my right, and there is nothing wrong with that and no need to apologize for it. The final judgement on whether it is or not has nothing to do with me but with moderators, and judges, and the responsibility for it belongs to the person who posted it, not the person who was offended by it. People can take offense for many things, to complain is a right that actually isn't exercised enough. That people think 'complaining to somebody' is somehow a threat means that they know that what was said may well be hate speech, otherwise nothing would happen. <br /> <br /> I never contacted the CJC but I assume that after one complaint they would no doubt check the site again. IF they did, clearly they'd see this and obviously don't share my sentiment that it is hateful or else they would have acted on it. That doesn't surprise me, I'm sure they see worse stuff out there all the time, and clearly the owners of this site have no problem with it, however, I find it far more chilling the reaction to a complaint than pulling an article. Clearly 'whistleblowing' is not a practise that gets much leniency here, and the message sent is clearly "if you complain you damn well better keep quiet about it".