Replying to Avatar freemymind 🇨🇭

Whom are you defending and for what reason?

Ursula Haverbeck: Is denying the holocaust.

Ernst Zundel: Same.

David Irving: Also denying holocaust.

Not accepting History that has still thousands of survivors. To never forget this history the European Court of Human Rights was founded and survivors of the nazi regime have been convicted publicly so this history is not forgotten.

This is by no ways a centralized force. It is the history of our society in Europe, that we have.

No problem, whoever wants to write a novel how the world could be if there was no nazi regime. But the crimes against humanity are matter of consent. Not of some centralized propaganda.

It is also historic consent, that europeans migrated to Northamerica and systematically killed indigenous tribes. Genozides all over the US. And such History does not change when one beleaves it did not happen.

And to beleave so has nothing to do with freedom. Its about power.
Avatar
Kevin Alfred Strom 11mo ago

So it would be okay and "democratic" to imprison people who say that National Socialists are basically good, or who write novels portraying them as basically good?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
freemymind 🇨🇭 11mo ago

Thank you for bringing this up.

It really is a inliberal law, that goes against the freedom of speech.

Eventhough I can understand why people did want this law, I would also vote against it. Rather people should be allowed to say everything and the law should take action when an individual is starting with violent actions.

And expressing alternative stories to history should rather be handled by the society with the freedom of speech again.