ext_190175 ([identity profile] real-aardvark.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] peterbirks 2010-04-26 04:59 pm (UTC)

Re: holocaust denial

Well, Birks didn't exactly help his case by being entirely incoherent in the middle passage:

Now, the problem arises when someone, as Ms Rosenkranz did, questions the sense of having such a law. Because, well, Ms Rosenkranz's husband is a bit of a far-righty, the kind of bloke who might just say something like "the Holocaust is a myth".

No such problem, Peter. Free speech good (as you point out lower down); freedom to marry whoever you want, not entirely relevant to personal lunatic judgements; free speech good. My understanding is that the Austrian electorate was always going to vote anti-Nazi. As it turns out, they probably voted even more anti-Nazi than was expected. I assume that they would therefore still be in favour of banging Holocaust deniers up -- and they'd be wrong.

Anyway, John, to your point. There's a big difference between "denazification" (don't hire the fuckers) and corrupting the body politic by curtailing free speech.

And, frankly, there are more important and useful things for the engine behind the EEC to be doing with its time.

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting