Translation ':
"I follow the work of Jos Verhulst quite some time and I have never seen him in a sign of denial or Holocaust denial - in the literal sense then - found. It is true that he denounces the repression of these phenomena as an attack on free speech. And that He passionately defends free speech because it is prerequisite for truth. In this respect he is a follower of Voltaire, who was willing to give his life for the free expression of opinions which he himself detested. Jos Verhulst defends not the opinion of deniers, he defends their right to express those views. This is an essential distinction, and it is not that Jos Verhulst denialist views in relation brings with anthroposophy, but those who do not make this distinction - from ill-will, mental laziness or for any reason whatsoever. And that is indeed shocking. From anthroposophists, you would expect something more. "
If so, I would not have much easy to dispute. And I also know that Jos Verhulst (though not to be confused with the Jos Verhulst from Gouda, or the person named Jos Verhulst "as a pseudonym used - see the discussion bottom of this blog post from March 10, 2010) like to limits of free speech station, the sharp debates and controversies not afraid. He is widely read and has many years political and social developments closely followed and commented on. Bear witness of his great contributions on the Internet. But precisely because I expect anything from him other than what I regularly encounter him from the corner of the denial. I go to his website 'Free Spirit Life " and from there directly "to the folder " direct democracy "" I find this example at the bottom " Dossier: Freedom of Speech . I go in this case down, it says' July 2000 - The offensive against Free Speech (with Chomsky on to Faurisson) WW0 -6. It concerns a couple of articles "The White Yard in June 2000. The last part consists of 'Some basic remarks on the right of free expression "and has this introduction:
" Chomsky wrote the following text after the storm of criticism in France after he lit a petition had signed in favor of freedom to speak for the revisionist Robert Faurisson. After twenty years, the text is more relevant than ever. One sees that Chomsky Australia and Britain, besides the USA, as bastions of free speech considered. Meanwhile, in those two countries clearly an offensive is underway to free speech legal limit. In France very strict censorship laws were created, including the victim Garaudy. In addition, a climate of terror created physical. Faurisson, for example, several times seriously addressed by Zionist gangs. - JV '
Follows the text of Noam Chomsky in 1980, without further comment. Relevant comments I consider or by Gie van den Berghe back in his book "The exploitation of the Holocaust" in 1990 (second edition 2001), who were all also on the Internet, on its own website. In the first chapter he writes directly under ' d. Freedom of expression ':
"When Faurisson for his denialist statements from his university office was suspended a five hundred intellectuals signed a petition against it. Among them none other than Noam Chomsky, the renowned American linguist and radical critic of U.S. policy. The case arose out of the pan. The petition was sentenced in France as a plea for the denial. At the request of his leftist Chomsky French friends put on paper some considerations about the right to free speech. That text was adopted without explicit permission as Chomsky's preface to a book by Faurisson (1980).
In the above considerations Chomsky does not address the substantive discussion (gas chambers, Jewish extermination) because he considers it too little about them. Chomsky makes clear that the right to free speech is meaningless if that right applies only to opinions or only defended where supports. The right to free speech should ardently defended the course as it is shocking opinions, opinions that are diametrically contrary to their own conviction. Chomsky also stresses the obvious difference between defending the freedom of speech and defending the views expressed. But he adds, unfortunately, at that Faurisson in his eyes a relatively apolitical liberal and that nothing seems to him antisemitism points. Chomsky had done well to its previously expressed view that no debate with deniers need to be repeated here. The deniers are text would certainly not used to legitimize it. "
Look, I of course like to want to come to Jos Verhulst. But none of that. In chapter " 6. The method denialist ", Van den Berghe expanded on Faurisson to speak, turn in " h. The "scholar" Faurisson, "" i. The Faurisson demagogue "and" Exploitation j ', where there is no chip on his views remains intact. Why do we read about anything from Jos Verhulst? - The following example, two lines above the previous article: 'January 2001 - Revisionism is not capitalism WW1-1'. Apparently another article from "The White Werf", entitled "Further attacks on civil liberties." It includes this:
"In Belgium, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism" a new complaint against revisionists. The "crime" of the latter is that in some Brussels communes had distributed a pamphlet which refers to the "myth of the Holocaust". The Anti-Fascist Front "and the Coordinating Committee of Jewish organizations have affiliated to the complaint (De Morgen and De Standaard, 20/01/2001). Meanwhile, three French members of parliament expressed the requirement that the deportation of homosexuals by the Nazi regime must be mentioned in history classes and textbooks (The Morning 01/12/2001). A new educational attainment so. In France, a new government report published in which the existence of Steiner schools is questioned. Under consideration Facts: In a particular school, the inspection found that the teachers for the classes jointly undertook a morning spell. In Germany, the right-minded people formed a common front "against the right" (www.netzgegenrechts.de). Several major newspapers and magazines together in the front of their media efforts to win people to the multicultural society, to a general ban on right-wing or nationalist publications, parties and associations and to help to convince citizens of the correctness of the legal imposed holocaust version etc. As a visit to the website shows, working media, trade unions and employer associations to do so structurally. Merging the "free" press and economic power will therefore be a very public appearance on. "
Is it necessary to freedom of speech to illustrate the distribution of a pamphlet which refers to the "myth of the Holocaust" 'and use it as a "crime" between showy quotation marks, and then in one breath by showing that free schools to the same kind of 'injustice' (here are my quotes) be? I miss here what Van den Berghe argues in chapter ' 6. The method denialist ", after which he will speak to demagogy" b. Propaganda ':
"In the same ideological sphere adjust their massive propaganda campaigns, half striking feature of the denialist method. They carry out propaganda per tonne. The media are systematically being bombarded with readers' letters and statements. Their own book publishing and widely distributing shipping services advertising flyers, brochures, magazines, video and audio tapes. All that comes up in mailboxes of unsolicited journalists, writers, parliamentarians, libraries, professors, teachers, historians ... Numerous copies of often outright anti-Semitic journals are systematically sent to Jewish communities and people with a Jewish sounding name. Readers are urged to distribute brochures, to deposit money for the funding of video recordings, translation, printing and mass dispatch of articles. In five years time, in forty countries (including South Africa) more than one million copies distributed the brochure prepared by Richard Verrall, British leader of the radical right National Front (Six Million Really Die?, in 1974 published under the pseudonym Richard Harwood). When the printing and distribution of such literature in a number of countries was proclaimed, Canada grew into a major distribution center with Ernst Zundel on the head. Mid eighties there in fifteen languages, printed and sent at least fifty countries. "
The Holocaust Myth Verhulst come to an article back in 2005 following the trial of Ernst Zundel to Germany: March 2005 - The Zundel case is about human freedom. Period. "But first there is an article by a certain Matt Hutaff show, titled" Ernst Zundel: Modern-Day Galileo ':
' Ernst Zundel Believes That the Holocaust is not as it Has Been Presented. He HAS written and spoken out about this. For this, he Has Been hounded by some Jews, the way Galileo was hounded by some Catholics.
This week matches, Zundel was deported from Canada to His native Germany where clause he was promptly arrested for the crime of Holocaust denial. " That's His crime: Holocaust denial. (...)
Zundel did nothing but use His inalienable human right to Speak Out On His belief That Could the Holocaust have happened as we're all supposed to believe. He did not deny That Jews died. Lots did. There was a war going on. He did not deny That Were there concentration camps. Were there plenty. In fact, and as an aside, we just had some in the U.S., but INSTEAD, or Jews, we put Japanese Americans in ours. War is hell. "
Jos Verhulst just stand and let it goes on "Relying on physical data and documents':
" In late January we got the media one day long-term carpet-bombing Auschwitz commemoration of material processing. The endless stream of reports and reports on the persecution of Jews contrast does sharply with the silence around other events between 1925 and 1950 in Central Europe took place, and does almost forget that all these messages are delivered within the framework of a censorship regime. A freedom loving people should consistently be silent on matters about which the political caste censorship laws have been issued. But our freedom-loving media are of course not.
Any rational and independent thinking person should in good conscience to wonder what he really really knows about a topic related to both an exceptional censorship imposed as excessive and "news" occurs.
knowledge of the events in the Auschwitz camps is based on two types of sources. First we have the classical historical sources: archives, photographs and documented physical remnants of the camp. On the other hand we also have a mass of testimony. Testimonials are much quoted in the press, and regularly dive more new statements so that more than half a century after the facts are first formulated.
We should dare to ask whether such testimony the facts. Witness statements are basically very vulnerable. Scientific Research has shown that memories can be contaminated by quick suggestions. We must therefore an impression about the reliability of the testimony. "
Following four criteria that should satisfy testimony. Then write Verhulst
"There are few elements of these four criteria. One element that could be accepted, the testimonies of the chimneys of the crematoria, which abundantly clear from smoke and flames spewing and numerous testimonies not only from the camp, but also far could be observed. However, we shall discuss a second element that we could easily identify which can quantitatively analyzed, namely the total number of casualties in the camp were regrettable. Several witnesses gave their views, and created common ground on which their declaration was based. In addition, the State Museum Auschwitz-edited a book which, a list of all testimony regarding the total number of casualties in the camp (Franciszek Piper "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, aufgrund der Quellen und der Erträge der Forschung 1945 bis 1990 'Verlag Staatliches Museum in Oswiecim, 1993). Because this inventory is already available, we do not run the risk of our research unilaterally selected data base. "
follow a long section with the primary question: "How many deaths were actually in Auschwitz?" For after many estimates and calculations to arrive at:
"If" official "figure may be the figure of 1.1 mliljoen deterred by the Auschwitz museum and also provided by Raul Hilberg (" Die Vernichtung der europäische Juden "Frankfurt am Main: Fischer 1961, 1982, 1999) is specified. An alternative is the figure of 1.5 million, on the memorials at Auschwitz-Birkenau was made in 1995. These memorial stones were in place of the old communist regime introduced under the stones, there was 4 million victims. The European Parliament also stated that 1.5 one million casualties. "
Verhulst's conclusion is:
"The witnesses, both inmates and guards, giving numbers that are compatible with the communist propaganda figure of 4 million, but from a statistical point of view are not to be compared with a figure of 1 , 1, or 1.5 million. (...)
The simplest explanation seems to be that the figure of 4 million deaths a figure that the propaganda was geïnterioriseerd witnesses. In any case, our finding suggests that people with the reconstruction of the events in the camps must rely on physical findings and reliable documentation, and not on evidence. The fact that a relatively short series of witnesses to the events, true statements based on (at its declaration) independent observational methods is obviously no guarantee for the veracity of the statements.
Substantive research on mass killings in certain camps in a simple manner. Especially in Treblinka and Belzec must play by the enormous mass graves exist statements whose exact location and magnitude of modern means of a non-invasive way (using GPR) can be mapped into. The simple fact that this investigation has not officially taken place (revisionists claim or investigation) is a incredible gap. Censorship can never serve the truth. An absolute openness, under the eye of the cameras out ground radar study would however like to testify to truth. "
That Would not you like best to have a rational and scientific approach to consider. Or it appears only on a rational search for truth and something more sinister? Why would you want to find out if this, what purpose does it serve? We can on the evidence again turn to Gie van den Berghe, in chapter " 5. Overwhelming evidence extermination of the Jews "among other things, using ' b. Nazi sources " and "c. Other sources . And that would not apply in all Verhulst? But let this issue "free speech" again and return to the webpage on 'Direct Democracy'. There we see "Heroes of our time" are stated, around three pictures. The bottom is accompanied by the text: 'Stop the Secret Trials! Free Ernst Zundel. Political Prisoner '. The letters I get in are too small to read. Click on it leads to "Pressemeldung der Mannheimer Staatsanwaltschaft. Leugner Holocaust vor Gericht, "with added including a report from 'Day 1 of the Zundel Trial. Who wants to read it, it will be mostly done. But the man looks at me not a classic example of 'Heroes of our time ", it would be a mystery to me why Verhulst him as such boosts. But with all the previous examples, I have not really such a mystery anymore. It happens too much, too unbalanced and too eager. As a final example I click on the photograph left, the first 'Hero', and show off to arrive at 'Siegfried Verbeke risking long prison sentence, " a message from' The Morning of October 26, 2005":
" International Assistance Chamber of the Amsterdam court yesterday decided to Siegfried Verbeke, the extreme right Godfather of Holocaust deniers in Flanders, to extradite to Germany. Verbeke was arrested in early August at Schiphol airport on a European arrest warrant was issued last year by the Prosecutor of Mannheim in Baden-Württemberg. He has since lived in a prison in Alphen aan de Rijn. The German court wants Verbeke prosecute violations of the law on the denial and revisionism. In Mannheim, where the prosecutor specializing in fighting deniers, he risks a prison term effective from five to ten years. In Antwerp, Verbeke for similar offenses sentenced to the maximum sentence of one year.
'lawyer, Peter Noah, counsel for Verbeke, the extradition will take place within ten days. By the verdict of the Amsterdam court is final. Verbeke, who during previous sessions had taken place a glass cage to protect him against possible aggression from the public, was not present yesterday in court. From telephone conversations with his lawyer that his client learned Verbeke "shocked" by the verdict. The defense had in recent months many procedural issues raised in the hope that the maximum period of three months which the Dutch court had to hold Verbeke would be exceeded. In that case, Verbeke automatically be released. "
About this 'hero' I read in a postscript to an article by Gie by Berghe in 1995, " Homework Holocaust deniers " in which he states:
"Instead of historical sources suspect they need to once again seek out the sources of their opposite story can ratify. Let them work it with the following command historically justified. "
In his epilogue he wrote then:
"This homework appeared in some newspapers. It was an instant hit: negationists Siegfried Verbeke climbed into his vitriolic pen and sent a three-page pamphlet to its mailing list. The homework comes evidently high. His response is as usual person, vulgar, contradictory and without level. He asserts, first, that the homework has been made that the deniers and the other prevents it.homework
The operation of this state, as I said, apart from reactions of deniers, it is a defense for their opponents. Deniers that the task would take was not predicted. The fallacies which they rely to make themselves to avoid actually do not. But the publication of the homework in the magazine still offers the opportunity for their cunning arguments to refute.
(...) the homework is to demonstrate the falsehood which deniers believe. When the deportees were not killed, in 1945 they lived or died of natural causes. This requires the usual sources exist for all citizens. The homework begins in Belgium, in many archives which have survived: Register of Jews, deportation lists, and post-detection equipment. Work should be continued in municipal and police records in countries where the victims lived, according to the deniers continue. Anyone who works hard can find resources and advice. But there's effort and historical knowledge.
The homework would be worthless because I am not a historian. Besides a degree is also a professional historian. It is primarily a scientific method. As usual in the scientific community of scientists decided that method and its correct application (one degree is not an absolute guarantee). This recognition is the work of my profession I have long gotten delivery. So I'm a historian. Moreover, even if that is not the case, why should not valid homework?
The burden of proof under Verbeke not deniers, who denounced the debt. Not hindered by any knowledge or method retrieves Verbeke law and history together. In addition, the deniers who deny genocide historically proven. From all available sources of information and knowledge it follows that the largest number of the deported Jews from Belgium and Gypsies were killed. Whoever claims the opposite to that with constructive, scientific arguments to prove. What could be more logical and easier to detect than the millions which the deniers are not victims? "
Verbeke Why is this now one of the three heroes of Jos Verhulst? There are still plenty of other heroes of the limits of free speech look, sharp debate and do not shun controversy. It is clear that in this case I rather Gie van den Berghe for wear Jos Verhulst. That seems to me absolutely selective, tendentious and biased and therefore not worthy of imitation, although he also indulges his freedom of speech.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment