Has this goon seen the light?

[The Lone Gunman]

One of the difficult questions in this case, particularly pertinant at this time, is the right to free speach and freedom of enquiry.

I think this guy has changed his stance from denier to modifier.

There are a number of questions that need to be asked, however, the asking of them is an offence in the countries where you may find an answer.

The number of dead in the "holocaust" has varied over time and some people want to examine the evidence to reach a "reasonable" figure.

A number of people have been arrested for trying to answer this question.

Maybe a team should be commisioned.

[Mailman]

But the point is that free speech is free speech. If we accept that the Mohammed cartoons should be published, then we have to accept that anti-semites are allowed to say what they like, even if we find their views abhorrent.

There is a very real difference between drawing attention to cartoonists being afraid to provide material some people think offensive AND denying that the murder of jews took place during WWII.

Mailman

[Fleetwood]

pertinent
speech

[ALM]

There is a very real difference between drawing attention to cartoonists being afraid to provide material some people think offensive AND denying that the murder of jews took place during WWII.

Mailman

How hypocrotical MM. The cartoons were every bit as offensive to muslims as anything this guy may have said about the holocaust is to the Jews. If we campaign for free speech in the case of the cartoons, we should do the same in this case. Who exactly is choosing which groups we have free reign to offend and which we don't?!

[sasguru]

How hypocrotical MM. The cartoons were every bit as offensive to muslims as anything this guy may have said about the holocaust is to the Jews. If we campaign for free speech in the case of the cartoons, we should do the same in this case. Who exactly is choosing which groups we have free reign to offend and which we don't?!

You'll have to forgive MM. He's a bit hard of thinking.

[Mailman]

How hypocrotical MM. The cartoons were every bit as offensive to muslims as anything this guy may have said about the holocaust is to the Jews.

**** off they were...they didnt become offensive until some dirty farken mud mullahs went around in a concerted effort to wipe up some jihadi fervour (by using images that had nothing to do with the original cartoons).

Once again...there is a very real difference between those cartoons (which only became offensive once some dirty bastards stirred up a whole kettle of trouble) and the kind of rubbish people like Ervine like to post.

Mailman

[sasguru]

**** off they were...they didnt become offensive until some dirty farken mud mullahs went around in a concerted effort to wipe up some jihadi fervour (by using images that had nothing to do with the original cartoons).

Once again...there is a very real difference between those cartoons (which only became offensive once some dirty bastards stirred up a whole kettle of trouble) and the kind of rubbish people like Ervine like to post.

Mailman

Like I said ...

[Fungus]

There is little difference between the Danish cartoons, and Irving. In each case UK laws allows such free speech, and IMO that is how it should be.

In Germany, and presumably Austria, Nazi symbols such as the Swastika are forbidden, presumably out of sensitivity for those who suffered and their relatives. Seems fine to me. But IMO you should not ban Holocaust denial as they do. It is better that such views are aired in public so that respected people can demolish them, and hence they are not allowed to influence the simple minded and naive.

[Mailman]

There is little difference between the Danish cartoons, and Irving. In each case UK laws allows such free speech, and IMO that is how it should be.

There is a huge difference between cartoons drawn to bring attention to the so called "plight" of the cartoonists too scared to work and rubbish posted with the sole intention of denying the hollocaust ever happened.

I know, this seems to be a concept people like sasguru have very real difficulties in understanding

Mailman

[zathras]

**** off they were...they didnt become offensive until some dirty farken mud mullahs went around in a concerted effort to wipe up some jihadi fervour (by using images that had nothing to do with the original cartoons).

Once again...there is a very real difference between those cartoons (which only became offensive once some dirty bastards stirred up a whole kettle of trouble) and the kind of rubbish people like Ervine like to post.

Mailman

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with MM.

The cartoon row was driven primarily by mullahs seeking political change in the west by saying something which is not true. There is nothing in Islamic rules which prevent images of allah and Mohammed. Indeed a simple Google search will reveal Islamic Art Works portraying Mohammed.

Irvine was expresing an opinion of History which he freely admits was wrong.

I do see a problem with either a government preventing someone from expressing an opinion (even if widely misguided) or religous leaders.

The cartoonists should have been able to draw some cartoons without fear of reprisal and Irvine should be allowed to question Historical Orthadoxy again without sanction. (other than being proved wrong).