Posted on 02/21/2006 7:43:07 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Contextualized with the other Nazi methods of mass murder, Le Pen called the extermination camps a 'detail'. With the context removed, he was tarred as an anti-Semite.
This is not really a "hate crime" which is a new phenomena coming out of the USA usually relating to an additional penalty put on someone doing a violent crime based on race, gender, national origen or (nowadays) because a victim is homosexual. I too reject the idea of hate crimes. If someone murders another, whether it was because of his race or, (I think worse) just because they could care less about human life, either way the victim is dead. The perp should get the same penalty, whether he was racist or not (which I think should be death).
In Germany and Austria, since the Allies won WWII it has always been illegal to show support for the Nazis. It's not new, and not related to making another crime worse, as "hate crimes" do.
Is it perfect freedom of speech? No. But in America, we never followed a mad dictator and went along with perpetrating a Holocaust of up to 20,000,000 (that's TWENTY MILLION) civilians, of which less than half were Jewish.
Hence in light of history, I think their prohibitions on Nazi symbols--to keep the fascist sympathizers permanently down--is wise.
Again, this is not a now and future phenomena. Since WWII it has ALWAYS been a criminal offense to publically endorse the Nazis or deny the holocaust. In 60 years too, Nazi sympathizers have not grown, so the strategy seems to have worked. See my post above.
Germany and Austria are NOT the USA. Their people of 60+ years ago largely went along with the Nazis, and after the war it was understood as a wise thing to surpress that evil group who would if possible violently overthrow their representative democratic governments.
Today in America if you are a radical Moslem, calling for death to Americans and praising Bin Laden and the Taliban, you will be watched closely and perhaps have your freedom of speech even curtailed. I think that's a good thing...as freedom was never ment to be a suicide pact.
Not only do they think themselves more civilized, many whom I have known were fierce in their insistence that they are "free" and life in the U.S. is not free. They base this absurdly on the fact that they can get naked in the sauna with stangers of the opposite sex.
They think our life is stifled because we are puritanically hung up on sex. It is so laughable that super-regulated Europeans believe that they are the free ones. (And my observation about nudity is that, although it is not as casual in the U.S. as in Europe, Americans are evidently finding suitable occasions on which to disrobe.)
No bar to her being Miss Newcastle 1968.
We even have a FReeper who also sympathizes with David Irving in questioning whether Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.
More than one, unfortunately, based upon some of the less defensible sentiments expressed within this very thread.
LOL! I hate it when that happens!
I guess "Sir Frank" wouldn't mind being married to a Nazi if she were a real Countess.
Not bad!
To put it another way, "they lost their right to free speech because their grandfathers did something bad." Sorry, I don't buy it.
A. We Americans assume that the right to free speech is "inalienable".
B. Last I checked, western civilization doesn't pass judgement on the sons for the crimes of the fathers. The notion of "inherited guilt" is utterly foreign to western thinking.
These laws prove that europeans learned nothing from the Nazis. The fact that they have prosecuted and sentenced a man for a thought crime is proof enough.
Not totally so. "Affirmative action", "institutional racism", and "slavery reparations".
All based on assigning blame to some for deeds done by others (many of whom are dead.)
All those concepts that are alien to the democratic, individulist western ideal of government and culture. They would fit in nicely in a socialist worker's paradise or an autocracy, though.
1984? I found it distressing that the initial Bush campaign bragged about passing or supporting "hate crime laws" in Texas. We are doing badly enough without Thought Police.
If a crime has been committed, it should be punished as a crime, without judging the intentions or origins of the crime. If justice is blind, then we should not let off people for being retarded, under the influence, or rich and influential.
I'm guessing her title is now through Sir Frank. The marriage was divorced, not annulled, and, so, it did legally occur, even if the parties entered it under false pretenses. I would, however, suggest to Sir Frank that titles are attached to one's head; if you remove the head, you remove the title. ;^) Ah, the good old days...
>> Well, I happen to be Count Griaznoff and I have never heard of this trash! <<
I believe she is actually the Countess Choppereadoff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.