SSPX Shame

[OsullivanB]

Originally Posted by Clare

Of course, and if you were a historian, and were scrupulous in your research, and still found out something controversial - so controversial that noone would take you seriously again if you revealed it - so controversial that you would be a criminal in some countries if you revealed it - would you reveal it?

It is hard to take historians seriously when it becomes apparent that they are actually not free to carry out their research in an impartial manner. Or do you really believe that they are free to do so?

Yes, I do. Remember, it was Irving who was trying to impede free speech by suing the writer and her publisher. No-one was trying to silence him. Indeed his work was published and is still freely available.

So, he was free to publish, snd did, and free to sue, and did. His judgment in each case is open to question, but his freedom has been demonstrated.by his actions.

[PMS]

Originally Posted by OsullivanB

Yes, I do. Remember, it was Irving who was trying to impede free speech by suing the writer and her publisher. No-one was trying to silence him. Indeed his work was published and is still freely available.

So, he was free to publish, snd did, and free to sue, and did. His judgment in each case is open to question, but his freedom has been demonstrated.by his actions.

I believe that freedom is now curtailed by the EU as Germany and Austria can now prosecute people who deny the holocaust in other EU member states, seeking extradition from those countries where holocaust denial is not a crime.

[OsullivanB]

The books are available on Amazon and abebooks.

[OsullivanB]

Originally Posted by PMS

I believe that freedom is now curtailed by the EU as Germany and Austria can now prosecute people who deny the holocaust in other EU member states, seeking extradition from those countries where holocaust denial is not a crime.

Most crimes do not have extra-territorial effect i.e. a crime mist be committed in the relevant country to be triable in that country under that country's laws. I am not aware that those countries in which holocaust denial is a crime have abjured that principle. I think not, but don't have the time to research this fully. So if I say in London that the holocaust never happened, I am not liable to be tried for that in Germany. If I post the same here, I probably could be arrested here on an EU warrant and tried in Germany because by posting on the net I would have published in Germany.

[garfield]

Originally Posted by Clare

Of course, and if you were a historian, and were scrupulous in your research, and still found out something controversial - so controversial that noone would take you seriously again if you revealed it - so controversial that you would be a criminal in some countries if you revealed it - would you reveal it?

It is hard to take historians seriously when it becomes apparent that they are actually not free to carry out their research in an impartial manner. Or do you really believe that they are free to do so?

There is nothing stopping any historian publishing controversial claims, but are they backed up by facts? I repeat the question what research if any has been done, reviewed and published that claims the generally accepted facts about the holocaust are wrong?
Anyone can assert any controversial re-writing of history they like (witness Dan Brown and his ilk) but claiming it is the truth requires evidence

[Ela]

Originally Posted by Clare

He said he didn't like them. Not that he didn't love them.

I'm sure he is aware that we are to love everyone for God's sake.

That is as may be, but as Christians we are called to be Christ-like and I submit that it would have been more Christ-like to say: "I don't like what they believe" rather than: "I don't like them"; the first being the dislike of a belief and entirely acceptable with Christianity, the second being the dislike of a person / people and unacceptable.

It was not the best of his sentences to highlight.