amaralsright wrote:
I would also add that in internet Holocaust debates there is normally a suspect supposedly on your side giving the "yang" to "ying" of the people doing the flaming which results in the thread going downhill.
It gets very frustrating.
There are people out there who will do anything to make sure people don't discuss the details of the Holocaust.
The extreme is in Germany where in court, the person accused of "Holocaust denial" is not allowed to defend himself by discussing his research in court. Neither is his lawyer who can also go to prison for doing so.
That is INSANE.
Why is that even necessary?
Everyone who believes in freedom should be up in arms about that.
But the truth will out some day as more and more people actually start checking it out for themselves.
Since the law in Germany bans denial of nazi atrocities (we're not just talking Jews here)- if they let people start arguing the toss about the Holocaust, every case would be a re-run of the Irving/Lipstadt trial which would clog up the courts and cost huge amounts of money.
You can't go into a court and start arguing the law is wrong, which is basically what that's doing. I think alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy and it shouldn't be illegal, but if I got busted with a load of pills, the court wouldn't let me start presenting evidence as to why ecstasy shouldn't be a class A drug. If you don't agree with a law, you don't start arguing about it in the courtroom, you try to get it changed outside the courtroom.
In the case you're referring to, Syvia Stolz decided to start declaring to the court it was totally illegitimate as the Third Reich should still be the recognised authority - basically going on a big rant about how the Nazis should still be in charge. Why she thought that was a good idea, i really don't know. It's like your lawyer wearing a 'the judge is a wanker' t-shirt.
