Posted on 05/18/2007 9:10:20 AM PDT by bedolido
An Italian university closed one of its campuses for the day Friday to prevent a planned lecture by a retired French professor who denies gas chambers were used in Nazi concentration camps.
Robert Faurisson, who has been convicted five times in France for denying crimes against humanity, is expected to speak at a local hotel instead.
The University of Teramo cited security fears in announcing the closure of its law, political sciences and communications departments. "[There is] a climate of tension which could put in danger the safety of the students," the university said in a statement.
The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center had urged the university to cancel the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
The guy’s an idiot, but I can’t get past this notion that sticking your head in the sand is punishable by imprisonment. As El Rushbo sez, “If you’re in the middle of making a fool of yourself, we’re happy to get out of the way and let you!”
someone should throw the holocost denier in a gas chamber, and deny that it’s a gas chamber while doing so then!
Inge- I can’t even imagine what that’s like- it must be terrible and a smell you never forget I’m sure- Yup- the deniers should be gassed by the very chambers they deny took place. Just until they’re unconscious- then wake em up aND make them walk over borken glass barefoot to a microphone where they will apologize to all Jews for having denied the holocost took place.
I disagree with the actions of the Italian authorities (closing the University for a day) and with the sentiments of those on this thread calling for punishment of this particular holocaust “denier”. If this guy wants to claim that there were no gas chambers, why not let him? There are plenty of other historians who can then respond rationally and factually to whatever he says. All fair-minded people can look at the respective arguments and make up their own minds. This approach is supposed to be good enough for every subject under the sun. I do not understand the motivations of those who claim that the holocaust requires special treatment.
Actually he's a Professor, doing what professors,
according to Ward Churchill, "do". Which is to "profess".
In this case, even more than that fraud, Ward the phony Indian, what is being "professed" is wrong, incorrect, in error, contrary to physical evidence, written records, sworn testimony, photographs, etc., all of which work together to prove beyond a doubt that what this French "Professor" is saying, points 180 degrees away from the Truth of the matter.
Hmmm, would Professor Churchill agree with this ridiculous Frenchman? Maybe...
Even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but ... the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Holocaust deniers are pure slime, but they are slime who should be debated. The fact that the public will have to learn about the Holocaust to be able to debate these lowlifes more than cancels the evil that they spout.
The gas chambers were never put into mass production at Dachau, and may never have been used at all. (The ovens were, however.) Dachau was built as a political camp. It never served as an extermination camp, unlike Auschwitz and some of the other eastern sites. There were executions by hanging and firing squad, and prisoners were transported from Dachau to other camps for execution.
That’s a great quote from JSM. Thanks.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
A few comments on immigration on today’s pings.
I heard it said on radio that the provisions for deporting illegals based on criminal records would save us from legalizing terrorists, citing the Fort Dix 6.
The Fort Dix boy were freelancers. A reminder of the danger of jihadist ideology. But not all terrorists are freelancers.
Organized terror groups aren’t run by the uneducated. They know our laws.
Anyone they infiltrate across the Mexican border, or through tourist or student visas, overstayed, will have a clean record at home. And will have a clean record here.
I’m open to correction, but other than visa violations, which will be overlooked, I don’t recall any contact by the 9/11 19 with law enforcement.
Immigrant status and future citizenship must be denied anyone who has associated with terrorist groups in the past, or in the future.
No one is imprisoning him. I think it's perfectly understandable that an educational institution doesn't want to be associated with Holocaust denial. He can find somewhere else to speak, neither this institution nor any other is obligated to give him a platform.
Holocaust denial stinks, but I really don’t like this censorship.
Only evidence will shut down these fools.
My point was directed more toward the statement that he’d been “convicted of holocaust denial”. Conviction connotes violation of the law, which is often punished by incarceration. I couldn’t agree with you more that nobody should feel compelled to give the guy a platform.
That's an issue in Germany and Austria, dating to anti-Nazi laws enacted post war (at US insistance), and not really relevant to this thread.
We agree he has to find his own platform, and if it's a soapbox on the street, with the necessary permits, that's a function of his message.
Send the French professor to the University of Colorado (home of Ward Churchill) and he can be granted tenure.
What censorship?
Are we required to allow him to spew his garbage on FR?
Or can he find his own venues for his message.
Why?
See my last post. Are we required to host him on FR?
I don't think so.
Anyone who disagrees, please reconcile that with the many Rudy supporter bannings. Which I admit I think is counterproductive, but in no was a restriction on speach. They can find their own place to speak.
No one is calling for punishment.
You feel provision of a platform is mandatory, fine.
Is FR morally required to provide a platform for the views of Rudy Guiliani.
Or Hillary. Or Edwards.
His opinions, his responsibility to find a venue to express them.
The University is no more obligated to air his views than they or FR are to air Rosies.
If he's got the right personality, he should try the talk shows. This stuff works on shortwave, maybe he can mainstream it.
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.