Agree with a lot of you on the idea of making him responsible for spreading the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen. However, and might be because I feel closely related to the Independence struggle, I want to put it in that perspective.
Would I want to hear from anyone that no one was killed/jailed to free my country? No. Never. I'd want to storm up to him and give him a piece of my mind. Would I want to have him jailed/hung/tried/fined for that? Depends. What draws the line between having a personal opinion (putting it on a blog) vs. making a political statement (going on national tv/radio, getting a letter published in the WSJ) ? This question has troubles me for a while ... Recent fact being the IIPM issue. Back from the tangent ... According to the logic of getting him arrested in Austria ... Just after the end of apartheid[1] in america and south Africa shouldn't the black community in these two countries have gotten all people who supported apartheid till a while ago jailed/tried? How many cases did we see? Did we see any govt. officials being tried, the president? The judges who had been handing down racially discriminatory sentences to blacks? Hah. And they jail this dude for anti-Semitism. Not to look down on Jews ... But I believe what happened (and happens) with black people is a bigger worry ... Or does america/europe look at anti-Semitism as a bigger problem because it affects other whites? - Vinit Before you flame me for calling what happened in usa as 'apartheid' ... Understand that apartheid is just another word for segregation. See below ... [1] racial, political, and economic segregation of non-European peoples (at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html) [1.1] an Afrikaans word which essentially means segregation (at www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php) ______________________ Vinit Bhansali www.logic2go.com www.bhansalimail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > et] On Behalf Of Biju Chacko > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [silk] Austria holds 'Holocaust denier' > > On 18/11/05, Martin Senftleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's a very difficult terrain, because at a certain point you reach > > the same position the other has, and you are as "bad" as he is. How > > long is it "protecting the freedom of thought and speech", and when > > does it begin to be an attac against another person's life? > > There are no easy answers -- otherwise we wouldn't be having > this conversation. > > My main worry is that many countries seem be drawing the line closer > to "restrict individual rights" rather than "protect free speech". > > Restrictions on individual rights are often easily justified > especially "for the common good" -- and in the case of loonies like > David Irving it's even easier. > > However at which point does it stop "serving the common good" and > starts to merely serve the good of whoever is in power? > > -- b >
