Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Kyoto "cap and trade": A very 21st-century Ponzi scheme? | Main | The Role of the Legislature »

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Right on, Rafe

Rafe Mair, writing in B.C's online, left-wing magaine, the Tyee, on why Ernst Zundel and David Irving should not be in jail. It's a welcome but too-rare defence of free speech.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Right on, Rafe:


Canada has a free press but leftists got hold of the universities and journalism schools and over time our population has been turned into mushbrains. Germany had free speech and Hitler was democratically elected. Is control the answer? I doubt it and I don't have a snap solution either.

That being said, Germany and Austria have reasons for their laws and I think Rafe should butt out. We should leave other democracies to run their show and learn from their mistakes where appropriate. ...maybe I can get a law passed ...

Posted by: greenmamba | 2007-02-27 1:09:48 PM

Thw writter said: "Because both those countries, based on well justified national shame, make it a law to deny the Holocaust."

No, I don't think that that is exactly what their laws are specifically about.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 1:40:10 PM

Furthermore, he writes:

"The slur, the gross insult, the expressions of prejudice all belong in the sphere of human expression that must be dealt with by the disapproval of decent people, not the courts."

If there were no such thing as a direct connection to hate mongering and acts of violence against the Jewish people, then maybe he would have a point. Fact remains words that lead to crimes are punnishable in other arenas as well, yet I do not see him whinning about that. And, those situations did not include issues pertaining to Nazis and islamofacists who are hell bent on destroying -- killing therefore -- all Jewish people around the Blobe.

Case in point, Charles Manson. he never laid a single finger on his victims, and yet he remains in jail to this day.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 1:45:07 PM

I really should get the "slap award" for the most typos. Please change "Blobe" in the precceding post, with "Globe". BTW, the aforemention award does not exist, neither is it written to imply real slaps, but rather a figure of the freedom of speach.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 1:46:38 PM

I must admit that I cannot support restriction of free speech in Canada, but I make a distinction between free speech, even hateful speech, and anyone promoting violence. The old example of someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded cinema/theater would not qualify as free speech.

Now for the sensitive subject of Holocaust denial, as much as I find it repugnant (having lost most of my relatives in France in the Holocaust) and unbelievable in light of all facts, I still support their freedom of speech. This is assuming they are not also calling for or inciting violence. The fact remains that you can have all the hate laws you want but can never force people to think differently. Yes, we can force them to silence in public with their thoughts remaining in the shadows, but that has never proved effective over time. I would prefer to see open debate with such people and expose them to the public for the public to decide.

I agree that Germany and Austria are in a different situation all together. That however is for them to run their own countries and not for us.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-27 2:26:44 PM


It is very clear in my mind, the difference between the "Right" to free speach, and the "abuse" of that right.

With all due respect, being a child survivor of victims of the Holocaust does not really add any more weight to the issue of free speach in relation to the Holocaust.

No one wants anyone to stop talking about the Holocaust, no matter who they are, because there are lesons there, to be learned by everyone. That is the respectful way of doing or exercising the "Right" to freedom of speach. It is also about respecting the loss of our loved ones. Sure, there is time to personalize, but in a sheer debate, it reminds me of people who utter that phrase "as a", and do itall the time, as if that made their arguement stronger. Holocaust, as an issue of debate, really does not need too many "as a's", given, as you stated, the mass of proof.

The difference is fundamental in, not only the intent of the words -- which are, after all, behaviour -- but also what the words end up provoking in the long run.

I am reminded all the time, that words do not kill, people do, -- but like pumping-out-the-truth, although truth is free, pumping-it-out, is not. Pumping out words, could be like pumping out bullets, if you will.

In the end, it costs something. In the balance of scales, when that cost is human life, then a line has to be drawn in the sand. Why? Because words that incite anti-Semitism eventually, if not always directly, lead to the death of Jews, or people mistaken to be Jews, friends of Jews, or people who may not even like Jews at all, but who do not feel they should be killed, just because they are Jews. Holocaust denial is about inciting that which is not just a dislike of Jews, or a preference to not be Jewish, or to prefer that which is un-kosher, but a mechanism used to invoke crimes against humanity. If a person denies the holocaust, and questions whether or not it exists, and has never seen the evidence, then that is one thing. It may be a moment in time. Once he or she has seen the evidence, then he would have to be either stupid, or have some other agenda, to continue to be a holocaust denier. One can forgive those who are perpetually idiots who lack the mental capacity to know the difference. But those who, with all apparent intelligence and ability to know right from wrong, who go to all lengths to continue to say the Holocaust does not exist, and who willfully promote hatred, the kind that leads to the murder of Jews -- the kind that lead to the Holocaust, well in my opinion, they are not just exercising a "Right" to freedom of speach, but totally abusing it for their murderous agenda.

The case can get no more graffic than that of the case of the islamofacist terrorists who inspire others, through their holocaust denial, and anti-Semitic expressions, which they pump out at their so-called locations of learning, for the sole purpose of exercising what they call, their right to hate Jews. We know that the many exercise their hatred of Jews, and one in a few thousand, then go out of their way, to place suicide belts on their bodies, bombs in their backpacks and go explode themselves in what they call their expression of freedom of speach.

Then their are the others, who hack off the heads of innocent Jews. Daniel Pearl was interviewing the terrorists when they disclosed that they were interviewing him, got him to say a whole bunch of things, and then cut off his head. Those people had a whole lot of words utterred to them before they got to the point where they did that henious crime. Now, would they have done that if there was no such freedom of expression within their societies, to advocate for the deaths of Jewish people?

When murder and words are connected, the fact is that that kind of expression meets violent behaviour hand in hand, in which case,the words the proceed are in fact as evil as murder itself.

All humans are commanded not to murder. Yet when people like Irving, Zundel and Ahmadinejad defhumanize us with words, for years and years, it is very clear that there comes a point in time when people no longer see us as humans, but totally the oject of their hatred, and act on it.

Now, is it the same as a few cartoons?

If it were about a few cartoons, then there would be no issue whatsoever. It is about the extent of the propagation of propaganda that goes well beyond a few cartoons. And that so called "beyond" can be seen in the speaches delivered by Ahamadinejad, and thoughout the middle east, fomenting, like in Nazi Germany, that which leads to attrocities against humanity.

People will probably raise the issue of the Danish cartoons. And, they have a right to do that, especially here at shotgun blog. But, the cartoons in the instance of Denmark were not made with the intent to cause a fomentation of genocide. The material presented by Irving, Ahamadinejad and Zundel, do. There are records of many many instances in which violence has been carried out, by individuals, and the presence of many many documents, as produced and expressed by those so ever loathed people, are found all over these people's residences. They say it is just freedom of speach. But if it were just that, the sheer numbers of deaths, death threats, acts of sheer hatred that are occurring around the world, would in no way be at the level of which it is today.

And, since it is that way, and not just people running around saying, "oh it is comic relief", then the material produced by those anti-Semites, is pure hatred in motion.

Deep inside then, what do we see? We see not only words, but purpose. We know that not all the truth can be expressed in words. Try describing "time", for example. "Time", the ticking of seconds? No, that's a measure. Ok, "time", as in lifetime? No that's a measure of life.

So, it is not what cannot be described, but the mission that is behind it, that is coined in the words. And, utterring those words, is in fact, expressing behaviour that leads to the deliverance of their mission.

And, we may not all be Einsteins, but we do know, even if we cannot describe it in it's entirety, exactly where all that leads. And, it is not pretty.


Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 3:34:52 PM

Geez, it's amazing how often one writer must deny denial and genuflect to the denial police just to write an article about free speech.

A sad state of affairs.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-27 7:45:36 PM

So, does the "D" in "DJ" stand for Dhimmis, while the "J" Jihad?

Just asking.

So, you part of the group out there, Dhimmis for Jihad or something like that?

Ok, that was a joke. hahaha!

Why you hate so much? There is so much more to do in life than to practice hatred to the extent that you do. You emmulate ugliness, and that is a very tragic state of affairs.

Since you hate people who are not like you, I am willing to make a compromise.

First, you have to agree to something -- shall we say -- a roadmap to peace, as a pre-condition to potential compromization?

You have to agree to keep your cotton-pickin fingers off of every single invention or work that has ever been made and or invented by the Jewish people.

In order to be seen in agreement, you would have to give up everything that has a stamp of invention by Jews, and pledge to never purchase and or use any material or writing that has been touched, written, created, invented, copywritten, trademarked, branded, pattented, or whatever by any Jew or Jews anywhere in the world.

And for that matter, anything that has been done the same by any other group pf people, that is not exactly like yourself in every which way, shape and form.

You think you can do that D?

Or does all the material contribution of everybody who does not fit being-exactly-like-you, not exist as well?

If denial was merely as stupid as it looks, you would be free to do it all you wanted. But it is not so stupid, as it is dangerous. And, since it is dangerous, it moves beyond the perametres of that which is included in the principles associated with "freedom of speach". The words you and your hateful friends utter, are not speaches either, but ugly rhetoric born of an ignorant and dangerous ideology.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 1:32:00 PM

Does that include the Jewish indoor toilet? ;)

The state of Israel denies the Armenian holocaust. How much violence has been incited because of that "hateful, bigoted" position?

If you are so concerned with incitement to violence in the gentile world why not move to Israel? They need the immigrants. Thank goodness you don't live in the US where every time David Duke speaks it incites violence agaiinst a Jew.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-28 5:10:52 PM


You are such a liar.



So now you are just another gentile? Is that when it suits you, or did you have to plug your nose when you wrote that?

David Duke is not unlike yourself.

But you already know that.

I like the USA, its freedoms, democracy, and liberty. And also, I like their laws against crimes of violence, of which you seem so comfortable with.

Hey DJ, I am certain there is a compound out there, that dreams messy dreams about people just like you. Perhaps you should stop wasting your time on good American soil and go join one of them. Perhaps you can have a nice warm embrace with jad and his scum on the way....

Posted by: Lady | 2007-03-01 12:40:52 PM

Per your second link,

"Israel has declared that there was no change in its policy over the so-called Armenian genocide, reaffirming that it still sticks to what was expressed in 1995 that the topic should be discussed among historians, not politicians. "

An excellent suggestion, except of course that opportunity, for historians to discuss the Jewish holocaust, is suppressed. If denial is a dog that won't hunt, why chain it?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-03-01 5:00:54 PM


There are scads of opportunities to discuss the holocaust. In fact, discussing the holocaust is encouraged.

I reiterate, you can feel sorry for an idiot who cannot help himself, because he is so stupid that he knows nothing about holocaust, therefore does not believe it exists, until he has been informed otherwise. Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, are not really interested in the topic of holocaust, in-so-much as their purpose is to propagate anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is what propelled the Holocaust in the first place. And that which propels genocide is against the law.

I would recommend you got over it, but you are so brainwashed it would take much more than a suggestion to accomplish the task.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-03-02 9:17:10 AM

It seems evident that DJ, and others like him, are not Christians. Since the founders and main players in Christianity were Jews, to be such a virulent anti-Semitic would be the rejection of the most basic tenet of Christianity. I understand that the Catholic Church labels anti-Semitism as a grievous sin. So what is left seems to be either neo-pagan or Muslim. I should not however leave out the godless Left of course, and as the saying goes "those who cease to believe in G-d, will believe in anything".

Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-02 12:43:14 PM


It appears he sees himself as some kind of Visigoth/ Aryan Christian on the one hand and then anglo-saxon when it is convenient, on the other.

In other words, a member of the NDP/NPD.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-03-02 1:36:12 PM

"main players in Christianity were Jews"

Truly spoken as one with a non-Arab semite-centric view of the world. Even a simpleton, with a basic knowledge of Christian history knows that Europeans were the main players in Christianity. Without the adoption by Europeans, Christianity would be simply another forgotten Jewish sect.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-03-02 2:06:59 PM

"Anti-Semitism is what propelled the Holocaust in the first place. And that which propels genocide is against the law."

Anti-Christianism propelled the Armenian holocaust. Yet being anti-Christian is not against the law. Why's that? If the Armenian holocaust can safely reside in the public forum, according to the state of Israel, then why can't the Jewish holocaust?

Posted by: Dj | 2007-03-02 2:17:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.