Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Are there "forbidden topics" people may not talk about?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 2:20AM #1
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

On another thread, a tangent developed around the question whether or not Middle-East related discussion was in part 'prohibited' or 'illegal' in some countries.


This thread is meant to address this tangent, such that the contaminated threads can be cleaned from it for the sake of not losing focus.


The pertinent posts from the mentioned thread have been re-located here.


Until now, it still remains unclear whether this is a Middle East News & Politics topic at all; please help us making it one, by providing content, if you feel the discussion should stay here, and not be moved to "Worldwide News & Politics" in the near future.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 2:22AM #2
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 17, 2012 -- 8:29AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

One of my fellow citizens was imprisoned because he questioned (his human right) something about Jews among many other things in his professional and personal life he would question and talk about. But for questioning Jewish version of history warranted prison sentance. That is not in Israel, that is here in Australia.


Had he questioned Scottish history or any other it would be ignored


Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Shusha wrote:

Dos,


Australian hate speech laws exist to protect those who may be harmed by it.  The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 states:  it is “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."  (And if your post refers to Toben, this was the Act he was convicted under (as well the Crimes Act 1914). 


You ask why Jews are treated differently.  Note that the law does not specify that it applies to only Jews -- it applies to any case of discrimination against ANY other group.  There is no special treatment being asked for here.


Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:06AM, NahumS wrote:

Dos- if your friend was penalized for Holocaust denial, I have little sympathy for him. Those people who deny the Holocaust are not clever academics who question mainstream history, nor are they simple crackpots who ignore all historical evidence in order to advance their bizarre claims. They are malicious and dangerous. They are planning a repitition of the genocide.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 2:28AM #3
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 18, 2012 -- 6:31AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

Quote:


'Dos- if your friend was penalized for Holocaust denial, I have little sympathy for him. Those people who deny the Holocaust are not clever academics who question mainstream history, nor are they simple crackpots who ignore all historical evidence in order to advance their bizarre claims. They are malicious and dangerous. They are planning a repitition of the genocide. '


Nahum, firstly he is not my friend he is a fellow citizen.


Secondly, he was not imprisoned for holocaust denial,  nor did I say he was.


'They are malicious and dangerous' - why, for asking legitimate questions?


'Planning repetition of genocide'??  isnt this accusation against innocent parties hate speach? 


Is  this what you wish others to be thinking so they can be accused of anti-semitism?



Apr 18, 2012 -- 9:25AM, NahumS wrote:

Dos -


I am glad that you choose better friends.


The questions that Holocaust deniers ask aren't legitimate. The basic facts are  obvious to anyone willing to examine them.


I just returned from Poland. I saw the death camps, and I saw cities that had hundreds of thousands of Jews before 1939 (Warsaw, Lodz, Cracow) with only a handful of Jews today. They did not evaporate on their own.


Who among the deniers is a legitimate historian? How many of them also call for Israel's destruction?


I am not convinced that legally prohibiting this kind of vileness is the most effective policy. But I have no sympathy for the miscreants. They are not innocent.  They are nasty antisemites, and their Holocaust denial is not simply an academic pursuit.


Nor do I hold any warm feelings for hate speech- against anyone. I am glad that it is prosecuted in Australia and other countries.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:45AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

There may be persecutions for hate speech here, but he was not imprisoned  for hate speech.


You say the questions they ask are not legitimate. There must be a huge list of illegitimate questions. I personaly do not know of any.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 2:36AM #4
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:09AM, Shusha wrote:

Dos,


It would be a respectful at this point in the discussion to provide some facts about this person as you keep bringing him up:  provide a link, a name, perhaps provide the specific offense he was charged with and some specifics about his "questions". 



Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:18AM, Shusha wrote:


Is it Brendon O'Connell?



tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 2:38AM #5
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Okay, what is it we discuss here at all?


We do not play hide-and-seek here, Dos. Please explain!... until now, it is not even clear whether we speak about anything related to the Middle East, you know?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 3:22AM #6
Shusha
Posts: 4,790

Char,


Thank you for the clean up and new thread.  I appreciate being allowed to continue this discussion. 


I disagree somewhat with your interpretation of the conversation as expressed in the title of this thread.  I do not believe there was even a shred of Jewish call to forbid conversation on the previous thread.  And so, no, I do not think there are any forbidden topics.  (Topics being the operative word).


When Dos provides further information, I will speak to the specific case he is referring to.  It seems likely to me that it is Brendon O'Connell.  If it is not, Dos can correct me.  Meanwhile, Brendon O'Connell's case serves as a useful illustration. 


Brendon O'Connell was convicted of six offenses and sentenced to three years in prison.  I have been unable to unearth the exact offenses he was convicted of (due in no small part to the ridiculously large number of highly offensive sites and blogs supporting him which make it nearly impossible to find the facts). 


The youtube video he posted included the following quote by him (among others), speaking of Judaism:


"Your religion is a religion of racism, hatred, homicide and ethnic cleansing". 



Australia has a number of "hate speech" laws.  Much like Bnet's Rules of Conduct, these laws make differentiations based on topics of discussion, like the policies of Israel, vs. generalizations based on someone's "race", religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc.  These laws also differentiate between comments made in private (which are perfectly legal) and those that are published. 


Would the above statement be allowed to stand on a discussion thread here on Bnet?  If not, (and I am confident that it would not) why should it be allowed to stand in the world?


Tying back to the old thread -- there will always be a need for a safe haven (sure, call it a gated community) for Jews as long as Jews are being attacked and as long as those attacks are defended or justified. 



source:  incogman.net/05/2009/brendon-oconnell-ri...


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 7:06AM #7
LeahOne
Posts: 16,566

That is the thread where Dos had alleged that there was Jewish pressure for such Holocaust -denial laws, wasn't it?


In a previous exchange, I'd asked him just what percentage of OZ' population were Jewish.  He came back with a figure of 6%:  the figure I found online was .3%  That is a twentyfold difference - and very obviously three-tenths of one percent is far too small a number to 'badger' a majority of legislators or anyone else into proposing and voting for such legislation.


The purported 'epicenter' of "undue Jewish influence", everyone has agreed, is the US.  And yet, the US does NOT have any such 'hate speech' laws.


I have previously made this observation and stated it to be a striking 'anomaly' in Dos' concept that such 'hate speech' laws are strictly/primarily/initially due to 'Jewish' pressure groups of any sort - let alone due to 'blackmail' as he has continued to suggests ( ie, vote how they say or be called an 'anti-semite').


I note that at no time has Dos presented any information from any non-Nazi-admiring source which contained anything remotely resembling 'evidence' that there is a particularly 'Jewish' impetus for such 'hate crimes' legislation as has been passed in several nations around the globe.  Each time I have asked for citations, the ones which he has presented have ONLY come from sites which excoriate the Allies and seek to exonerate the Nazis.  As no serious historians have taken such a view, I do not consider it reliable information - nor properly researched. ( And yes, I happen to have a university degree in an allied field.  So have others with similar objections......)  And let's not forget that David Irving *LOST* the case.


But while we're looking at the topic - shall we *also* look at nations which have embraced the likes of 'the Davids' (Irving, Icke, and Duke) and other such Holocaust-denying individuals?  I submit that viewing the two 'constellations' might shed some light on 'motivation'......

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:31AM #8
habesor
Posts: 5,802

Dos,


I suspect that the other interlocutors on this thread missed your point. You seem to want it to be missed as well. In an early message you wrote:


"One of my fellow citizens was imprisoned because he questioned (his human right) something about Jews among many other things in his professional and personal life he would question and talk about. But for questioning Jewish version of history warranted prison sentance. That is not in Israel, that is here in Australia." 



Could you please tell us exactly what you mean by the "Jewish version of history". And since you insist that it is the questioning of the Jewish version of history which is made illegal in Australia, could you please cite the Australian law which says that it is illegal to question the Jewish version of history. 


Habesor

Habesor
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 10:43AM #9
Dostojevsky
Posts: 7,857

 


Quote:


'Australian hate speech laws exist to protect those who may be harmed by it.  The Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 states:  it is “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."  (And if your post refers to Toben, this was the Act he was convicted under (as well the Crimes Act 1914).'


Shusha, yes it is Frederic Toben I had in mind, have not heard of Brendan O'Connell.


The laws above are not put into practice too often thank goodness as we are all offended now and then and insulted and yes it is because i am black or have a beard, and of course there is no other reason;) So it is Lwayer against a Lawyer. With Toben it was bit more. He has cleared some of his past history off his old website www.adelaideinstitute.com but here is a good summary-


Speaking is a crime? 27/10/1999 An Australian citizen, Dr Fredrick Toben, was arrested in Germany in April 1999 and will go on trial in early November. Toben is a Holocaust revisionist who runs The Adelaide Institute, a site which has been featured here for some time. It is apparently that web site (located in Australia) which has triggered his arrest. I have no time for Toben's opinions, but I believe that his arrest is an outrageous assault on free speech. That someone can be charged with a crime in one country for an opinion published in another country of which he is both a resident and a citizen should frighten anyone who puts their words on the Internet or in a book.


Censorship alert (22/10/2000) It is again my unfortunate and anomalous duty to complain about the treatment of Dr Frederick Toben and his ghastly Adelaide Institute web site. The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has ordered him to close the site and apologise to people he has offended. Dr Toben may be a daft buffoon for all I know (I have never met him), but all there is on the site is a collection of words. Dr Toben denies that the Holocaust happened (OR AT LEAST THAT IT HAPPENED IN THE MANNER AND SCALE that most people think) and he is wrong, but closing his site will not stop people talking the way he does and will only make him look like a martyr.


I can not quote prison ruling word for word, but it was for contempt of court, he was ordered to close the site and he did not.


Many things he says I do not agree with and often I do not like his language. But the Australian Govt. had done the right thing, to let it be. We need both sides of the story and we are better for it. Are the topics forbidden or are you simply 'deleted'. If others are allowed to accuse you unjustly of hate, hate speech, of anti-Semitism without any evidence but only as an idea in their perception - that is what you must be thinking, then it might as well be forbidden. In that case other topics should be forbidden as well such as Christian hatred and accusations.


Perhaps we could all just make a leap and discuss issues and not attack people.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 11:00AM #10
Dostojevsky
Posts: 7,857

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:31AM, habesor wrote:


Dos,


I suspect that the other interlocutors on this thread missed your point. You seem to want it to be missed as well. In an early message you wrote:


"One of my fellow citizens was imprisoned because he questioned (his human right) something about Jews among many other things in his professional and personal life he would question and talk about. But for questioning Jewish version of history warranted prison sentance. That is not in Israel, that is here in Australia." 



Could you please tell us exactly what you mean by the "Jewish version of history". And since you insist that it is the questioning of the Jewish version of history which is made illegal in Australia, could you please cite the Australian law which says that it is illegal to question the Jewish version of history. 


Habesor




Habesor, hope the above is bit of an answer. I am using a new computer and find it bit hard to navigate...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook