Mandatory Niceness

Canada's human rights commissions fight discrimination through censorship.

Jacob Sullum | February 13, 2008

Last month, when an officer of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission interrogated him about his decision to reprint the notorious Muhammad cartoons that originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Ezra Levant did not try to ingratiate himself. Levant, former publisher of the news magazine the Western Standard, called the commission "a sick joke," compared it unfavorably with Judge Judy, and dared the "thug" across the table to recommend that he face a hearing for publishing material that offended Muslims.

That way, Levant explained, he could be convicted, which would give him a chance to challenge the censorship that Canadian human rights commissions practice in the name of fighting discrimination. "I do not want to be excused from this complaint because I was reasonable," he said. "It is not the government's authority to tell me whether or not I'm reasonable."

Legally, that remains to be seen. Canada's national and provincial human rights commissions were established in the 1970s to vet complaints about discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services. But many of them have broad legal mandates that can be used to attack freedom of speech. Alberta's Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, for example, prohibits publishing anything that "is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt."

Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, claims Levant did that by running the Muhammad cartoons. "Publishing of cartoons in the Western Standards [sic] is in fact spreading hate against me," Soharwady scrawled on a complaint form he submitted to the commission in February 2006. He also complained that "Mr. Ezra Levant insulted me" when the two debated the cartoon controversy on CBC Radio. Soharwardy is demanding an apology. The commission can impose fines and gag orders as well.

Meanwhile, the Canadian, Ontario, and British Columbia human rights commissions are considering similar complaints against Maclean's magazine and the journalist Mark Steyn over an October 2006 article adapted from his book America Alone. The Canadian Islamic Congress claims Steyn "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" and harms their "sense of dignity and self-worth" by worrying about high Muslim birth rates.

Even if a complaint is dismissed, Levant notes, responding to it requires "thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees" and "an enormous amount of time," which encourages journalists to steer clear of touchy subjects. "A warning shot has gone out to every other media [outlet] in the country," he said during the 90-minute commission interview. "‘Don't mess around with the Muslim radicals, because they'll call in the censors.'"

In Levant's case the censors were represented by a bland bureaucrat named Shirlene McGovern, paid to enforce the commandment that Jonathan Rauch dissected in his 1993 book Kindly Inquisitors: "Thou shalt not hurt others with words." As Rauch cogently argued, "This moral principle is deadly...to intellectual freedom and to the productive and peaceful pursuit of knowledge."

But in a sense, Levant and Steyn are lucky. An Afghan journalism student recently was condemned to death for downloading and distributing a report that criticizes the way Islamic fundamentalists interpret the Koran to justify oppression of women. The student's Afghan defenders argued that distributing the report did not amount to blasphemy, that the prosecution was politically motivated, that the trial was unfair, and that the sentence was excessively harsh.

The one thing they did not say was what Levant said when confronted by Canada's kindly inquisitors: that even if the controversial speech is contrary to Islam and offensive to Muslims, the government has no business punishing him for it. "I reserve maximum freedom to be maximally offensive, to hurt feelings as I like," Levant told McGovern. While he has publicly explained the journalistic reasons for running the Muhammad cartoons many times, he said, "The only thing I have to say to the government about why I published [them] is because it's my bloody right to do so."

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|2.12.08 @ 11:26PM|#

In Canada, Graeme Morton reports in the National Post that Syed Soharwardy is withdrawing his complaint against Ezra Levant. See "Muslim Leader Drops Ezra Levant Cartoon Complaint" (February 12, 2008).

Peter Jaworski|2.12.08 @ 11:36PM|#

News came out today that Syed Soharwardy has dropped the charges against Ezra: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/02/charges-dropped.html

Louise|2.13.08 @ 7:33AM|#

And Ezra is suing the bastard. YES!!

|2.13.08 @ 8:16AM|#

When he's right, he's right. Levant should shove that complaint right up Soharwardy's stone-age ass.

A bit of bacon grease would help.

-jcr

|2.13.08 @ 8:44AM|#

I've just watched a couple of Levant's videos from when he was shredding that apparatchik who thought she was entitled to grill him for exercising his right to free speech.

The man's a pretty good advocate for freedom.

-jcr

|2.13.08 @ 8:53AM|#

cool coincidence, i heard Levant on Laura Ingram's show yesterday. good interview.

Episiarch|2.13.08 @ 9:42AM|#

As much as we have things like McCain-Feingold, etc., thank Jebus for the First Amendment.

Drake|2.13.08 @ 9:49AM|#

People have gone to jail in Canada for holocaust denial, how's this different? No, there should be no such laws, but why is it brought up now?

|2.13.08 @ 10:06AM|#

This may be the most public and spectacular reversal to the "legal jihad" that Islam has been waging against the West for the past decade or two.

I pray is it a turning point, and that we can start to fight back, to point out the bankruptcy of today's Islam as a religion, way of life, and path to future progress. Only then can we win the "war of ideas". Until now, it was a one sided war because the West engaged in nothing but half-hearted defense.

Thank god for people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn: mouthy, cocksure, perhaps a bit too much "in your face" to be pleasant company at dinner with your in-laws, but we sure need them when the chips are down because they have the courage and personality to fight for what's right.

Thank you Mr. Levant. Thank you Mr. Steyn. And thank you Mr. Sollum.

|2.13.08 @ 10:31AM|#

but why is it brought up now?

it was brought up then, too. and rightly so.

|2.13.08 @ 10:42AM|#

Keep in mind that Canada and the United States have fundamentally different views on individual rights.

The American view, at least traditionally, is derived from the principles of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"... that individuals rights are fundamental, and to protect them, government powers must be limited. Hence, the Bill of Rights spells out what the government shall not do (e.g. "Congress shall enact no law..."). Basically... protecting individuals' rights requires that government not butt in where it has no business.

The Canadian view derives from the prinicples of "Peace, Order and Good Government", that individuals can not stand up for their own rights, and therefore governments must be given powers with which to protect the rights of the people (including the power to operate affirmative action programs for "the the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals"). Basically... protecting individuals' rights requires that government butts in and makes it their business.

Compare the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the Bill of Rights and the differences should be clear.

|2.13.08 @ 10:53AM|#

Erza Levant is liar. It did not and will not cost him "thousands of dollars" - he could have responded with a registered letter.

Yes, for about $5 CAD.

I don't agree with HRCs and such either, but Ezra is milking this for his own purposes (publishing the cartoons was a ham-fisted attempt at boosting the sales of his now failed Western Standard magazine, which obviously didn't work).

The "hearing" was merely an HRC investigator looking into the claim to see if it had merit, not a full bore hearing. As such, he was not required to appear in person - he could have merely sent a registered letter. Levant CHOSE to appear in order to push his own neo-con agenda and make himself into some kind of hero. That's why he filmed it and posted it on Youtube - an act of self-promotion for a failed publisher, who couldn't publish a conservative magazine in Canada's most conservative province, even after he took government subsidies to do so.

Well, you should all be happy to know that your "pretty good advocate for freedom" is currently suing a local Alberta newspaper and a letter writer in a SLAPP suit, because they said something he didn't agree with (the letter wwriter was a former employee of Ezra). He has previously advocated the laying of hate-crime charges on a different Muslim Imam, even after the RCMP found no evidence on which to lay the charge.

Ezra Levant is only interested in freedom of speech and expression when its HIS freedom of speech and expression. If you don't agree with him you are out of luck and he'll happily trample your freedoms.

Ezra Levant is a charlatan who fancies himself Canada's version of William Kristol. Don't fall for his nonsense. He is no hero and no libertarian.

Kolohe|2.13.08 @ 11:12AM|#

And Ezra is suing the bastard. YES!!

I think just declaring victory would be the best strategy here. He may very well have a good case for abuse of process. His whole point, however, is the fact that these disputes should be held in the court of public opinion not the court of law. By playing offense in the court system, rather than just defense, he erodes his moral high ground he has in this case, and risks engendering some amount of sympathy for the people he opposes.

I'm thinking of the Savage/CAIR lawsuit; I'm not sure of the actual legal issues involved and who's right on them, but both sides in that one are rather odious to me that it almost makes me not care about any actual rights involved and wish that they both could lose.

|2.13.08 @ 11:53AM|#

Mike at 10:53 AM. Obviously you have a personal grudge against Ezra Levant. You might even be that "former employee" he is suing.

If he had responded with a 5$ registered mail instead of taking on the HRC in a way that NO PERSON HAS EVER DONE BEFORE, then we would not have had this brilliant victory for freedom of speech.

Ezra Levant is no one's first choice to bring home to mom and dad as a future son-in-law. He's brash, and in-your-face and opinionated. He probably has an ego the size of Canada. So? The same could be said of Winston Churchill. Oh, and Churchill was a drunk too.

But both were/are brilliant, both had/have the courage of their convictions, and both were/are huge contributors to our personal freedoms.

Whatever. You can distort the truth as much as you like.... fact is, what have you done for freedom of speech in Canada lately? I know what Ezra has done, and I am profoundly grateful.

Right.

|2.13.08 @ 12:31PM|#

"Erza Levant is liar."

Somehow, I find him far more credible than you.

" It did not and will not cost him "thousands of dollars" - he could have responded with a registered letter."

Sure, if he wanted to roll the dice on that raving bureaucrat moron's decision without looking her in the eye and making her realize that she was dealing with a human being with rights she was infringing by even hold this farce of an "inquiry".

-jcr

The sycophantic support of Levant is truly laughable!

It was he and his tribe that compelled the Canadian Government to change the mandate of the CHRC to include the suppression of thoughts and opinions that 'might be perceived as causing offense' (loosely paraphrased). The CJC then used the full weight of the Canadian Government, via the CHRC, to suppress free thought and speech during the 1980's and the 1990's, of any idea that the CJC didn't like.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and the Islamic community, having learned its lesson from the CJC, is trying to get its pound of flesh so to speak, we get all this gnashing of teeth, breast beating, the sky is falling, and "synthetic outrage and crocodile tears" because the perpetrators of these draconian anti-free speech laws find that they are caught up in its web and must spend $$$ to defend themselves.

Turn around is fail play, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people!

H.F. Wolff

|2.13.08 @ 12:34PM|#

"I think just declaring victory would be the best strategy here."

I disagree. If thugs can try to shut people up with *impunity*, they'll try it again and again. This needs to cost them something, hopefully enough to deter the behavior.

-jcr

|2.13.08 @ 1:32PM|#

He's brash, and in-your-face and opinionated. He probably has an ego the size of Canada.

In short, the ideal defender of free speech. Really. This is just the collection of character traits needed to kick all the right people in the nads.

|2.13.08 @ 2:18PM|#

"Sure, if he wanted to roll the dice on that raving bureaucrat moron's decision without looking her in the eye and making her realize that she was dealing with a human being with rights she was infringing by even hold this farce of an "inquiry"."

No, it wasn't an inquiry or a formal hearing. And the case would have been dismissed - it has no merits.

"Obviously you have a personal grudge against Ezra Levant. You might even be that "former employee" he is suing.
"

No, I am actually a Canadian that has had to listen to his neo-conservative braying for years. He may be some newly minted free-speech hero to you lot south of the 49th, but he is a tiresome, self-serving bore up here.

"Whatever. You can distort the truth as much as you like.... fact is, what have you done for freedom of speech in Canada lately? I know what Ezra has done, and I am profoundly grateful."

Well, for one thing, I'm calling out vulgar civil libertarians like Levant for saying the are devout to free speech, but will happily trample free speech when it suits them. In the vain, I am not suing former employees for writing letters to the editor, in typical SLAPP fashion in order to silence dissenting opinion I do not agree with. In that sense, I'm doing a hell of a lot more than ole Ezra.

I am all for getting rid of hate laws and HRC in Canada. However, I don't think we need to lie and manufacture artificial crises to to it.

Ezra was not compelled to appear before the investigator. He chose to. It was her job to determine if the complaint had merit, not to judge guilt or innocence of Ezra or to judge the veracity of claim against him. Most people in Canada, right, left and centre, fully expected this to be dismissed.

Ezra is only for free speech when it comes to bashing Muslims. When it comes to someone else using their free speech to criticize him, he's all for using the powers of the state to silence people or even toss them in jail.

You can try and trumpet that kind of hypocrite as a champion of free speech all you want, but he is no champion to me. I'd rather some one who always stands for free speech, not just his own.

|2.13.08 @ 2:28PM|#

Ugh, from what I've read of Levant, I don't think I'd like him very much. But I am in complete agreement with him on the free speech issue. But enough with the Canada bashing. First off, the freedom from censorship that U.S. citizens currently enjoy is relatively recent. The U.S. wouldn't let in James Joyce's Ulysses for God's sake. Secondly, we actually have not one, but two, major political parties that can be counted on be fiscally responsible. Thirdly, we didn't even have a proper constitution until 1982. And even though it does have a "notwithstanding clause" so that a government can technically overrule the supreme court, it is politically infeasible to do so.

|2.13.08 @ 3:08PM|#

No, I am actually a Canadian that has had to listen to his neo-conservative braying for years.

Mike, just to introduce you to some of the people here in the board. These guys here are pro free speech only someone is attacking Islam or making fun of Muslims. Start denying the holocaust and they will have no problem suppressing that type of speech. I doubt that many of them scolded Austria for jailing Irving.

|2.13.08 @ 3:44PM|#

"While I have no sympathy for Irving ... I still think that the law used against him is a bad idea"

"the idea that somebody can be looking at 10 years in prison for expressing a point of view is hateful."

Jennifer|2.13.08 @ 3:52PM|#

These guys here are pro free speech only someone is attacking Islam or making fun of Muslims. Start denying the holocaust and they will have no problem suppressing that type of speech. I doubt that many of them scolded Austria for jailing Irving.

Bullshit. Either provide a link to a Reasonoid calling for the outlawing of Holocaust denial and praising Irving's prison sentence, or admit that you're posting as "Anonymous" because you lack the balls to put your real name--or even a decent pseudonym--to an obvious lie.

Drake|2.13.08 @ 5:37PM|#

Mike is right, the rest of you don't know what you're talking about. Ezra didn't give a damn about free speech until the Human Rights Commission bit his ass. Where was Ezra when all the Holocaust deniers were hauled off the jail? In Canada, there is a double standard. Jewish concerns then everyone elses.

|2.13.08 @ 6:02PM|#

Drake,

I'm not so sure about that (emphasis on the "not sure"). I remember reading Levant's blog when I first heard of this case. He was pretty pissed off with some guy from a jewish organization complaining to a human rights board for similar reasons to the current case. Maybe its because the whole muslim thing is much more visible in the media..

|2.13.08 @ 8:09PM|#

Ezra didn't give a damn about free speech until the Human Rights Commission bit his ass. Where was Ezra when all the Holocaust deniers were hauled off the jail? In Canada, there is a double standard. Jewish concerns then everyone elses.

Whether this is true or not (and personally I suspect not) - by acting like they did/do Levant and Steyn (see his take on HRC at www.steynonline.com) it is going to be pretty difficult, if not impossible for awhile for the victim/bottom feeding groups in Canada to stifle the loud, mouthy, in-your-face types who "offend" them or their precious beliefs with mere words.

At least in the good ol' USA there exists a traditional assumption, based on a constitutional right to speak one's mind.

In Canada where I grew up [but fortunately for my libertarian tendencies I married a US maiden, and now live below the 49th] it seems to me the only rights I had were to be quiet, polite, humble, and shut up and buy into the " We're from the Government and we are here to help..." framework officially sanctioned by the phrase "Peace, Order and Good Government" - the philosophical basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (see posting by Russ R. February 13, 2008, 10:42am). I will mention that the rights therein are carefully described, and one is left with the feeling that if the right ain't listed there, it don't count as a right. (If you are bored, click on the link by Russ above, and amuse yourself.)

In addition Canadians have the right (read requirement) to obey our betters, protest politely, preferably in writing, and oh yah, to not defend oneself: in short, Canadians should not rock the boat, and must trust the government (fed or provincial) to take care of them.

If perchance I find myself being offended by anyone, (other than corrupt, power-mad politicians of course, which doesn't count!) I must file a complaint (politely in writing preferred) with some official body, and depending on who I say offends me, and who I am, or who I represent, they will use appropriate methods and tools to deal with the "offender".

In the US (though I am still offended by corrupt, power-mad politicians - I doubt that there is anyplace on the planet where they are absent), at least I am not (yet) forced by the government to be polite, nice, trusting etc. and as a bonus I am even allowed (in most jurisdictions) to defend myself!

|2.13.08 @ 10:50PM|#

Quote:
Ezra didn't give a damn about free speech until the Human Rights Commission bit his ass. Where was Ezra when all the Holocaust deniers were hauled off the jail? In Canada, there is a double standard. Jewish concerns then everyone elses. Unquote.

Allow me to rephrase: Jewish concerns and NO ONE else's.

I believe the foregoing quote/unquote to be substantially correct.

See my earlier post, above.

For our American Friends permit me to elaborate a little.

It was with the lobbying of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) that the Canadian Government enacted the draconian anti-free speech legislation, all in an effort to stifle any inquiry into the claims of the Holocaust. (think AIPAC in the US)

(you should know that during the 1980's Zuendel trials in Toronto the claims of the Holocaust were completely disproved, not that it made any difference in the MSM or politician's speech).

This legislation is enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which has ruled: "The truth is no defense". This is not a typo and you read it right: THE TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE in the eyes of the Canadian Government and its starchamber court the CHRC.

So, the next time Canadian politicians of any political stripe on their high horse comment on American social conditions, you have the perfect ammunition to shoot them down... and just watch them crawl back north with their tails between their legs!

(Mind you I do not condone US foreign policies)

H.F. Wolff

JOE|2.14.08 @ 12:00AM|#

Levant is THE MAN!

alan|2.14.08 @ 12:26AM|#

you should know that during the 1980's Zuendel trials in Toronto the claims of the Holocaust were completely disproved, not that it made any difference in the MSM or politician's speech

What?!? There may be quibbles about the actual number of people killed, given inaccuracies in records kept, but the Holocaust did occur. I don't wont to argue the point, though. AFAIK the biggest cause of antisemitism today are organizations
like Aipac, CJS, and William Kristol's ghoulish mug.

Anyway, it does seem to me that I have witnessed a fundamental change in character in the Canadian temperament in my own lifetime.

Not very long ago, I was enjoying a conversation with a Canadian friend, and out of the blue he starts to talk about a Canadian law regarding radio stations and how they must have a certain percentage of native Canadian artist represented in their sampling.

He then lays out the government spiel, how native artist must be protected because American artist have the backing of big corporations, blah, blah blah.

I was astounded by what I saw. A man who is usually robust and gregarious in character was actually whimpering as he rationalized why he should agree with his government. I must have been wincing harshly 'cause he asked me, 'what?'

I told him straight out, 'What the fuck happened to you, man? You know 90 percent of that is folksy crap you would walk a hundred yards away from if you heard it coming from the coffee house around the corner. You probably would not bother to change the dial because your government told you it was good for you.'

He really didn't have much a response, but it is has been difficult to treat him with even a modicum of respect since then.

alan|2.14.08 @ 12:27AM|#

'AFAIK' in the last post should read, 'IMHO'.

|2.14.08 @ 12:19PM|#

Test post only.

|2.14.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Quote
What?!? There may be quibbles about the actual number of people killed, given inaccuracies in records kept, but the Holocaust did occur.
Unquote.

It IS true that the Holocaust, as claimed by the Jews, did not occur, and no 6 million Jews were gassed nor, indeed, did "disappear".

You can call me any name you wish, but it doesn't change the following facts which you can easily research yourself.

1) In 2002 the Israeli government is on record as claiming that about 1 million Holocaust survivors were still living, 62 years after the war. Actuarial calculations (life insurance people are very good at this) show that this would mean that 6 million Holocaust survivors were alive after WWII. That is the total # of Jews in pre-war Europe. The Germans controlled/occupied an area that had about 3.5 million Jewish inhabitants. Go figure.

2) There is no documetary evidence, not a single shred of documentation, that shows that Jews were gassed or otherwise disposed of, apart from a small # of executions for espionage and sabotage. Even Jewish historians agree on this.

The Jewish literature deals with this by claiming that the perpetrators had a "meeting of the minds" and that no orders, budgets, reports, specifications, communications, were necessary. Anybody that knows anything about project management knows the absurdity of this claim of no documentation required.

3) There is no forensic evidence, at all, that would permit one to conclude that there were mass killings of people. An Australian research team investigated areas pointed out by eye witnesses as areas of mass graves and gigantic burning pits. Zip, nada, nought, nothing, nichts, was found. The team reported that the soil in the areas of interest had been undisturbed for hundreds of years. Claimed gas chambers were examined for Zyklon B chemical compounds that form from the gas combining with the iron naturally found in bricks and concrete. Only background levels were found as were in rooms and offices in the vicinity. Only the actual de-lousing chambers used to disinfect clothing and bedding material showed the high levels of Zyklon B compounds. Of course nobody ever claimed that anyone was gassed in these rooms.

4) The Aronson documentation centre, recently opened up for review in Germany show no record of any mass killings; what they do show are reports issued by the International Red Cross, which, in its final report of 1974 or thereabouts, found that 383000 people died of all causes in all camps, mostly of typhoid disease. The International Red Cross had access to all German camps.

5) There has been no open debate on the Holocaust. People who question alleged facts are thrown in jail in Germany, Austria, France, and yes, in Canada also. If the Holocaust is so self evident it should be very easy to prove this once and for all in an open debate.

The facts that are bandied about stem from the Nuremberg trials after the war. Practically all documentary evidence and judicial practices have been tossed out by the US Supreme Court justices that were present at those "trials". The general description by the judges was "victor's justice" and "Kangeroo court".

And so it goes. Naturally none of this is ever shown in the MSM, but very little digging is necessary to disclose the supporting evidence of my assertions, above.

H.F. Wolff

|2.14.08 @ 1:49PM|#

Hey Wolff - You are a crazy person. And, with a name like Wolff, you should be ashamed of yourself.

tomax7|2.14.08 @ 9:23PM|#

HF Wolff.
2) There is no documetary evidence...

Shake your head please. The top one. No evidence? You are correct, the only ones who could give evidence are dead.

Like my grandparents who were gassed also. But they weren't Jewish, just helping.

|2.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#

tomax7:

I have no reason to doubt that your grandparents were imprisoned in a concentration camp and that they may have died there.

Typhoid epidemics were a very big problem, and towards the end of the war, when all infrastructure had been destroyed and everything that moved was bombed, the food and medical supplies to the concentration camps were severely curtailed. Thats what happens in war.

However, your credibility vanishes when you claim your grandparents were gassed. As I stated above, there simply is no evidence of any kind that supports any claims of gassings. So-called eye witnesses were unable to describe, much less sketch, a functioning gas chamber suitable for homicidal purposes.

You could review the designs of gas chambers used in the USA for execution purposes. None of the eye witnesses even came close.

None of the eye witnesses could describe what a gassed body looks like, even though many claimed to have been forced to transport the gassed bodies to the crematoria with bare hands. (look up the properties of Zyklon B which, BTW, was used by many countries, including the USA, for delousing purposes, especially on ships).

When the US troops liberated camps forensic examinations of bodies of inmates proved that the died of typhoid, starvation, etc., all in keeping with late war time conditions.

Read the biography of Eli Wiesel and his and his sick father's "liberation" from Auschwitz. (Your grandparents WERE in Auschwitz, right???)

H.F. Wolff

Jules|2.16.08 @ 10:29PM|#

How bout the "final solution" nazi documentation and many witnesses to the mass killings (jewish that lived) and german guards - many interviewed on video.

Yes they were rather starving when the americans and soviets found them - bags of bones - deliberatelty starved.

So who invented this huge conspiracy, complete with photos of gas chambers, zyklonB reps told to lie, german guards lying, jewish survivors lying, USA troops lying, soviet troops lying... mmm you'd think ther'd be a leak somewhere no ?

|2.17.08 @ 1:39AM|#

Regardless of what ANY witness says, if the physical, forensic, evidence does not support the testimony, THEN THE TESTIMONY IS WRONG.

Whether a deliberate lie, or recovered memory, or whatever the syndrome du jour, it is incorrect if the physical findings do not support this. And ALL investigations have found NOTHING!

The Israeli Supreme Court had a name for this type of testimony when it threw out ALL eye witness testimony and found "Ivan the Terrible" innocent, AFTER a Jewish jury had condemned him to death.

Of course there was Zyklon B as I stated earlier, many countries used it for delousing purposes, AND THAT WAS WHAT THE SO-CALLED GAS CHAMBERS WERE FOR, FOR DISINFESTING CLOTHING AND BEDDING.

Who invented this huge lie? The answer to this question is quite easy: Whoever benefited from it. The legal profession has an expression for this: "Follow the money" if you wish to get a lead on the criminal.

There is lots of information available to those who spend a little time looking. If you expect the MSM to spoon feed it to you, you will have a long wait.

Yes, the inmates were deliberately starved to death but not by the Germans, but by the allies who bombed everything that moved thus stopping all transportation for food and medical supplies.

H.F. Wolff

|2.17.08 @ 2:07AM|#

Here is a challenge to those who believe the holocaust fairy tale, go to this website:

http://www.nafcash.com/

They offer you a prize of $250,000 if you can locate any of the alleged mass graves. This should be really easy because eye witnesses have given highly accurate locations for the burial of the ashes of almost a million Jews.

Say seven pounds or so of ashes per person = 7,000.000 lbs of ashes and around 32,000,000 million teeth.

Should be really easy to make $250,000, what?

Only one small problem. An Australian investigative team beat you to the punch and spent a week or so, using ground penetrating RADAR, looking for any gravesites. They found NOTHING except undisturbed ground.

Better not quit your day job!

H.F. Wolff

bour3|2.17.08 @ 4:54PM|#

Good God look at me and see if I can stand this one more second.

*God says, "No."

Wolf! You, Sir, are the worst kind of malignant idiot. I must now work to recover the portion of my IQ that was forfeited by reading your incredibly malinformed posts.

|2.17.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Name-calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel.

You cannot deliver a single item of physical or forensic evidence that will withstand scientific scrutiny, hence you must resort to personal attacks.

Methinks the holocaust profiteers see their money stream in jeopardy!

H.F. Wolff

|2.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#

"1)In 2002 the Israeli ... Go Figure"
This is potentially confusing. I would like to know where you get these numbers from.

"2) There is no... Jewish historians agree on this."

This I do not agree with having seen images that prove to me the contrary. Who are some of these Jewish historians who agree? I'd be interested in reading the passages you speak of. ISBN's please.

" 3) There is no forensic evidence..."
I have read reports to the contrary. Are you getting your results from the Leuchter Report? Please see here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/ third paragraph. And here: http://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrd_transcript.html where James Roth states:
"Cyanide is a surface reaction. It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter." This would counter your claim that there was no cyanide in the bricks, because it would not have penetrated that far. Read the section about Leuchter crushing the bricks thus diluting the samples.

4) I couldn't find any Aronson Centre on google. I did find the Red Cross website for Internation Services: Holocaust and War Victims Tracing Center and they have a Commonly Asked Questions section including a part about "Death Books at Auschwitz". Here's the link:
http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/holotrace/questions.html
There are more than just typhoid reports.

"5) There has been no open debate on the Holocaust... " I don't know about the open debate comment, but I do know that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany and Canada. Definitely. It is a bit of a touchy subject, to put it mildly. I don't however feel that your "if it's so easy to prove then let's prove it" is a worthy argument. If you think the solidity of this argument is self evident, then prove it. It should be easy.

Reference to your comment about the "Kangaroo Court" I found here:

"The second issue was whether or not this sort of trial -- not only the prosecutors, but also the judges -- coming from the victors, would be in fact if not in form a "kangaroo court." But this criticism softened as the Court amassed evidence of the evil intentions and deeds of many of the defendants, and also because three of the defendants were acquitted. Legal scholars also questioned whether the whole idea of such a trial where there was no existing body of law did not violate the principle embodied in the ex post facto prohibition in the United States Constitution."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_05-17-04a.html

|2.21.08 @ 1:01PM|#

- "You could review the designs of gas chambers used in the USA for execution purposes. None of the eye witnesses even came close." I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. please clarify.

"None of the eye witnesses could describe what a gassed body looks like, even though many claimed to have been forced to transport the gassed bodies to the crematoria with bare hands."
-what does a gassed body look like? Have you seen one in person? I need evidence, because your testimony is only as good as the physical and forensic evidence to back it up.

"The Israeli Supreme Court had a name for this type of testimony when it threw out ALL eye witness testimony and found "Ivan the Terrible" innocent, AFTER a Jewish jury had condemned him to death."

-Yes, in 1993 the case was closed, due to reasonable doubt. This is the same Ivan the Terrible that was later charged in 2004 however for persecuting jews as a nazi guard. link to US Dept of Justice here: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_284.htm

-"Who invented this huge lie?" I'm not convinced it is a lie, so I'm not going to deal with this one.

"Yes, the inmates were deliberately starved to death but not by the Germans, but by the allies who bombed everything that moved thus stopping all transportation for food and medical supplies."

Use of the word "deliberately" is misleading here. It makes it sound like the allies sole aim with the bombing campaign was to deprive prisoners of food.

"Here is a challenge to those who believe the holocaust fairy tale..."

I've read numerous reports that state that the ash would have been used in fertilizer and or dumped into rivers... but i have no links to back it up. I have seen numerous photos of mass graves, does that count?

|2.21.08 @ 1:03PM|#

Dear Mr Wolff, what did I miss, I'd like to cover all your points.

|2.21.08 @ 7:58PM|#

Dear Mr Markworth,

May I humbly suggest a little reading.

For example, the website entitled 'nazigassings' addresses most, if not all, questions/answers regarding this issue.

Another good site is 'lectures on the holocaust".

Back ground information and writings of the 1930's are collected on a website www.sweetliberty.org. That site alone is enough to make one weep.

And a webside entitled CODOH is the forum for questions and answers on the holocaust. No name calling is permitted and the vigorous debate is civil, with many references given.

The sick, dying, and corpses found by the allies in the concentration camps might be termed "collateral damage", but they were a direct result of the carpet bombing campaign.

You should be aware that I am playing the role of the accused, a holocaust questioner if you like. Consequently the onus is on the holocaust profiteers, ie. the ones that claim vociferously that the "holocaust is proven and no questions permitted on pain of imprisonment", to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the holocaust did occur as claimed. I am simply querying that what is offered as "proof".

If you read my earlier posts in this thread you would see where I have questioned, for example, the "6 million", among other assertions.

Are you aware that "6 million" were also claimed for WWI, the first world war??? This accusation was later rescinded as war-time propaganda by the allies.

H.F. Wolff

|2.21.08 @ 11:49PM|#

OOPS, did not notice your first post, Mr Markworth.

Please look over the web sites I cited, above.

The Zyklon B chemistry I was referring to was estabished by PhD Candidate Germar Rudolf, who is now in prison in Germany for raising very serious queries about the gassings in Auschwitz. His defence lawyer Sylvia
Stolz is also now in prison for raising forbidden issues.

The FACTS that I quote are snippets I pick up by reading the media from all over the world and looking for inconsistencies.

The Red Cross report I cite is available as a scanned copy on the website of one Birdman Bryant. This fellow is a sharp cookie but his sense of humour is weird to put it mildly. He also cites numerous other references.

I generally do not bother citing references because my assertions are in the public domain, they might take a little digging.

The mass media still pontificate about the 6million even though the plaque in Auschwitz was replaced with one reducing the original figure of 4 million to 1 million or thereabouts. Intellectual honesty would demand that the new number would be 3 million but nooo, that would strain the grey matter too much. In Germany it is still officially 6million; anybody who queries this winds up in prison.

It is the "over the top" reaction of organized Jewry, along with its "synthetic outrage and crocodile tears" every time even the most modest and deserved criticism towards anything Jewish is advanced.

During the Zuendel Trials in Toronto in the mid 1980's eye witnesses testified that the colour of gassed bodies was blue-green-gray, some of these witnesses also testified that they had been forced to move the bodies with their base hands.

Not one witness testified the bodies of persons that died of Zyklon B gas, or carbon monoxide for that matter, are of a RED colour! Further more, Zyklon B is a systemic poison, meaning that it is absorbed through the skin, and the witnesses would have died long ago.

You have seen numerous photographs of what exactly?

Huge piles of bodies, being burned?

Check out the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden, and how the local authorities disposed of the hundreds of thousands of bodies to prevent disease.

Many, if not all of the atrocity photos are misappropriated from legitimate occurrences, or doctored, re-touched, etc.

H.F. Wolff

Sorry for the somewhat disorganized reply.

H.F. Wolff

|2.22.08 @ 6:36AM|#

Humble suggestion noted.(again, two parts).
---
Nazigassings opening line states that the "Holocaust story is racist filth". I am struck with the impresson that the content therein would not be objective and thus will not read it. (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=nazigassings+website&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)
----
Lectures on the Holocaust I believe is a collection of Rudolf reports? Or by Rudolf himself? This does not seem to be worth reading after Rudolf himself has since stated "Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust "rigorously".
(http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/)
---
sweetliberty.org
do you mean the graphic design is enough to make one weep? just kidding. I have looked through this site and while much of the content reminds me of "conspiracy theories" I nevertheless would read the content you describe if I could find it.

On the research I have done about CODOH, it leads me to believe it to be a collection of like-minded individuals reinforcing each others similar claims with the help of various publications by other like minded individuals. Being polite or civil minded does not lend credence to discredited arguments. Robbing a bank while saying "please and thank you" is still against the law.

I do not doubt the fact that rigorous bombing campaigns led to increased suffering of everyone in Europe. Those in camps were probably most affected because they could not move around and find other ways to subsist. I could here argue that those who put the people in the camps--thus restricting their freedom to relocate in efforts to find food etc--in the first place are in fact responsible for the deaths of the interned individuals.

I understand that you are playing a role here. I am not sure that it is possible to prove beyond a doubt that the holocaust did occur as claimed. But I question whether focussing on one aspect while ignoring the rest is an entirely sound method. Whether people were gassed or not may be difficult to prove, yet the systematic persecution of Jews, Gypsies Poles etc cannot be denied. There certainly were prisoner trains, camps, ghettos, forcible confinement. This cannot be denied. Or can it?

"6 million." Donald Niewyk states that it is closer to 5 million (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=289191002135231). Please see here as well, a great chart. (although it's on wikipedia, sorry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_War_Against_the_JewsTable.png

As for 6 million during the first world war, do you mean that it was claimed that a systematic extermination of Jews was propagandized by the Allies?

cont'd

Herr Rudolf has since backtracked on his findings. See above and here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
and "on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built."

Sylvia Stolz signed a motion during Zundel's trial with "Heil Hitler." I'm growing skeptical of the folks you're choosing as friends Mr Wolff.

As for your FACTS, I think you should spend more time looking at both sides of the issue. I think it is easy to find facts that Americans didn't land on the moon if that is what you are searching for. Inconsistencies abound. Look at Fox News vs the BBC.

The Red Cross report may well exist. I was just checking out the Birdman's site, and read the Revisionism in one Easy Lesson article. Intriguing sure. But again, it's a case of "if they can't completely prove certain aspects, then those things therefore didn't happen, and that proves the whole thing was a sham." I didn't see any point in which Birdman says "that said, no one denies that they did round up all the undesirables and ship them off against their will to a place that they didn't want to go to..."

If I had a dog that died, but 20 years later I showed you photos and said "what a great dog I had," would you then ask me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I really had a dog? Would you suggest that my photo could be any dog in any park? That it could be my neighbours dog? Would you request to see the 2 pounds of ash created by cremation before believing me, or would you call it a hoax? I think based on these kinds of questions, it would be very difficult for me to prove if I ever did have a dog.

Birdman cites references, but excludes other references leaving me skeptical. As for you citing references, I'm not so much worried about copyright issues but rather the content itself and reading it with my own eyes, that's all.

I'm not entirely fond of the mass media either, so I try to read a whole bunch of different takes on the matter and decide for myself.

You're right, the plaque was changed, from 4 million to "about 1.5 million" (the photo on the birdmans site shows this), this is true. See the wikipedia chart again please (it includes places from all over, including the Ukraine, Baltic States and so on): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_War_Against_the_JewsTable.png
it's just shy of 6 million.

"It is the "over the top" reaction of organized Jewry, along with its "synthetic outrage and crocodile tears" every time even the most modest and deserved criticism towards anything Jewish is advanced." Go to Turkey and mention to the border guards that you have some modest criticism about their denial of the Armenian Genocide and wait for their calm collected reaction. I'm not suggesting that the reaction will be right or wrong, but it most certainly will be swift and unpleasant.

As for your Zundel trials comments about the colours of the bodies, there are various sources on the web that state that carbon monoxide poisoning can result in redness (here 1st paragraph http://www.hpa.org.uk/chemicals/compendium/carbon_monoxide/acute.htm) but not always. Cyanide poisoning (via zyklon b) can cause death by hypoxia, an oxygen shortage which can turn the body either blue (cyanosis) or red depending.
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/cyanosis.jsp
You are correct in stating that residual cyanide would have been extremely dangerous to anyone who handled the bodies without protection. Carbon Monoxide however would not have posed any threat to handlers afterwards. One must differentiate between the two to be clear.

As for the photos, I'd like to see proof of doctored images, and would like you to explain legitimate instances. Are there any photos here that you can show me? http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/

My response is sort of in a point by point basis. It's not super organized either, so now we're even.

|2.23.08 @ 3:30AM|#

Just a short reply.

As the accused I only have to show that other explanations exist for the presented evidence.

The accuser however must prove his evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry to see you wave off the sites I recommended. I certainly found them to be worthwhile to peruse.

I merely mentioned the 'civilized debate' on CODOH because most other discussion groups are name-calling contests with very limited intellectual effort or value.

I have read many sites, certainly 'both sides of the argument' and I found that the pro-holocausters quickly resort to name-calling, whereas the holocaust skeptics, for the most part, present their argument, evidence, or thoughts, for debate.

And from what I have read of eye witness testimony, much is of the type "my friend's brother's cousin's girlfriend said that...".

About the colours of gassed bodies, I mentioned carbon monoxide because it also causes redness in the body. The systemic properties are strictly those of Zyklon B. Assuming you are correct that some bodies are red, others blue, green, etc., I still believe it incredulous that no eye witness has testified to seeing red bodies. The systemic properties would have killed any witness who testified as being forced to move gassed bodies with bare hands.

The sweet liberty website has changed a lot since I last viewed it. The section of interest is entitled "How wars are made".

Regarding the 6million. In this context it is intellectual dishonesty to claim 6million when officially the count was reduced. 'Everybody' knows who the 6million were.

The "over the top reaction" I apply to Jews because they like to classify themselves as a white and democratic people.
As such I hold them to a much higher standard of behaviour and speech than, say, Muslims, or blacks in Africa, or the USA.

Even with the endless demonizations of Germany and the Germans since WWI, they behave in a civilized manner, as do Britain, France, Canada, even Russia. But not Jews or Israel.

The entire German People stand accused of the "most heinous crimes in all history" but no one is permitted to examine or question the evidence????

About Rudolf backtracking on his findings. Did you read the entire "rebuttal"? I am not a PhD in anything, but I have an honours degree in one of the hard sciences and earn my living with it. Rudolf recanted nothing, he simply explained the limitations of scientific investigations when you compare findings from different areas. The rebuttal I do not find believable.

As to the doctored images I will post them when I run across them again.

H.F. Wolff

|2.23.08 @ 5:27AM|#

Dear Mr Wolff,

I would like it to be clear that I never accused you of anything, and was under the impression we were having an open debate.

I didn't wave off the sites you mentioned, but rather didn't feel they'd offer much objective content, what with the hyperbole dotted all over the front page. I did read through the Birdman site, and sweetliberty.org, although as mentioned I couldn't find the older articles you'd talked about. I will try again with the title in mind now. And perhaps the CODOH was dismissed by these name callers, admittedly I didn't not go to the site itself, but I'll take a look.

You are correct that there is likely much hearsay evidence when it comes to witnesses. But do Eli Wiesel, Anne Frank and the rest of these primary sources not even out the hearsay somewhat? I guess it could be said that they were propaganda, but if one continues to question down and down and down we will never get anywhere. Prove to me that Shakespeare wasn't a cat with a typewriter. You can't, yet it's a similar argument.

|2.23.08 @ 5:28AM|#

I do hope that you read the link from the HPA regarding the redness you mention. This independent body in the UK simply collects information about health topics, much like the CDC in the US. (Who also state here that CO replaces red blood cells resulting in hypoxia which can cause redness as you say, or blueness or neither. It depends on the person, circumstances, so on. Much like no two illnesses are alike. You're also likely correct in stating that witnesses who moved cyanide gassed bodies would probably mostly have died, but this does not hold true for bodies gassed with CO.

ON the topic of the 6 million, I am not sure how to resolve this short of spending a great deal of time studying the matter. I guess to me, the point is not that it was an exact number, but the simple fact that it was done in a systematic way. Had it been 100, or 500, or 50,000 would it be any less reprehensible? I fail to see how a lower number of deaths--be it 2 million or 20,000--would be any better. I suggest that you focus less on this particular argument. This line of reasoning holds true for doctored photos as well. Why does the existence of some doctored photos immediately render all other photos false? I am happy to accept there are probably some doctored ones, but I know Auschwitz the Camp is real, and photos from the era in question exist and show poor conditions therein.

Your comments about Jews are fair, if you don't find something agreeable, you don't have to like it. No one doubts that. But what is true is that you shouldn't actively discriminate against it, or persecute it or in this case, them, in any way. I myself have an irrational hatred of small dogs for example, but I do not kick them or throw them off large bridges when I see them.

|2.23.08 @ 5:29AM|#

I believe that people can examine the evidence freely, Germans perhaps with less freedom than you or I, but I also believe that one must be objective and understand that it is a very emotional subject. Barging in to the Holocaust centre yelling "Prove it! Show me hard evidence!" will of course result in your removal and demonization. Taking a more scholarly approach would likely be met with mild resistance but again, you are always allowed to ask questions. One must understand the context of an issue before attacking it.

I did read the entire rebuttal, and Rudolf stated that his research could not be the "golden arrow" that shoots a hole in the gas chamber theory. I believe that you held that to be true, and I am saying here that the researcher now states that his findings are not.

Have a great weekend,

Steven Markworth

|2.26.08 @ 12:56AM|#

Mr Markworth, here is a web page you might enjoy:

http://rense.com/general53/dave.htm

The concentration camps were camps for political dissenters and common criminals.

When international Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933 (London Times head lines) Germany had the perfect right to inter all Jews that were in Germany; after all, they had declared war!

This was no different than concentration camps in the USA, Canada, and other countries.

Don't you find it interesting that the presence and use of gas chambers has been completely debunked EXCEPT for those camps that fell into the Soviet sphere of influence where no independent verification by western officials was permitted after the armistice?

Just to reiterate my earlier contention: For this instance where All pro-holocaust witnesses are bought and paid for (through blackmail of Germany, Switzerland, next the USA), all testimony is suspect unless supported by physical or forensic evidence. AND SUCH EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST, or we would be hearing it shouted from the roof tops. What we get instead are star chamber prosecutions and kangeroo courts to curtail any questions and investigations into the holocaust.

H.F. Wolff

|2.26.08 @ 1:04AM|#

Mr Markworth,

I'm assuming you are British; how do you feel about the British concentration camps in south Africa during the Boer war, where 20,000 or so Boer women and children died?

There is an interesting blog by one Henry Markow; among other things he refers to books written by English authors, about the way the English populace was offered as a sacrifice for Churchill and his war mongers war at all costs.

H.F. Wolff

|2.26.08 @ 1:10PM|#

Mr Wolff,
I read the article you posted. Quite well written, and with less inflammatory language than I'd expected. Yet it still seems to present only one side of the argument. An example: the author states that Maria Vanherwaarden testified that she saw no gas chambers, but what of the many others who testified they did see gas chambers? If you me and three others are all at a soccer match, and I miss a goal while getting us all beer, would my testimony that since I didn't see the goal and therefore it didn't happen be valued over 4 others?

The front page article your refer to was from the Daily Express, and in true English tabloid fashion, overstates the event by using powerful hyperbole. The article accompanying the headline goes on to describe boycotts and protests. The Jews weren't planning on landing at Normandy after giving their interview to the Express, so I hardly think that gave Germany the right to round them all up as enemies of the state. In 1914 an order in council in Canada was signed that all austro-hungarians must be registered and many were interned.

|2.26.08 @ 1:11PM|#

In WW2 the Canadians required Germans and Italians to register, and did intern many for little more reason than "they were acting suspicious," but this was an order in council signed 1940, the second year of the war. It's interesting to note that a number of Jews were interned in New Brunswick because there was a possibility that some of them might be spies. After 1942 the Japanese faced a similar fate. Canada later apologized and paid reparations. http://www.britishcolumbia.com/general/details.asp?id=44

I don't believe that the Gas Chamber theory has been debunked yet. Not by my standards anyway. I also must reiterate that it is my opinion that physical and forensic evidence does in fact exist but people are unwilling to accept it. I have seen with my own eyes concentration camps. I have seen images and read testimony that support the claims. Testimony can be suspect, sure. But Leuchter and Rudolf claim that there were no gas chambers, yet other equally credible scientists beg to differ. Same with images, if one photograph is doctored does that make every photo inadmissible? Hardly. You state that all testimony is suspect without evidence, yet there is evidence. I feel a bit like you are waving tiny shreds of inconsistency in front of my face in an attempt to block out a billboard full of evidence behind you.

I'm not British, but any kind of persecution and forced confinement of people based on ethnicity is regrettable. But I am curious, did you arrange to see the graves for these "20,000 or so" dead? Why are you so quick to believe this, yet fight tooth and nail to prove the holocaust of the 1940's was a sham?

I also read some of the Markow blog and the section on Churchill and how he bombed Berlin first to goad the Germans to bomb civilians in the UK. Interesting certainly, but I'm not sure that saying "Churchill was bad too" in any way demeans the events in the concentration camps in Nazi controlled territories.

|2.26.08 @ 7:37PM|#

Mr Markworth,

The position I advocate is simply this: All of Germany and all Germans every where, for generations in the future, have been convicted of "committing the most heinous crimes in history" aka "The Holocaust".

They paid, and are still paying for, this deed they have been "convicted" of. And are still called names.

Consequently numerous individuals including yours truly, ask questions about the alleged facts and circumstances.

It is my opinion that what passed as facts during the Nuernberg trials would be thrown out in any North American court.

An interesting scenario is developing in the USA: Life insurance companies are being sued for reneging on policies owned by H victims. I'm sure this will wind up in a real court with real rules of evidence, and real defense lawyers. We ARE living in interesting times!

I am truly surprised that you are willing to wave off any and all contrary evidence. As I stated earlier all pro-holocaust eye witness testimony is suspect because of the huge reparations payments that were, and still are, extorted. A normal court would take a very skeptical view of any testimony from such witness, and permit the widest latitude in any cross examination. And this has never happened.

Since I take the defensive position I only have to show that discrepancies exist and that there are other, reasonable explanations, for observed facts. This I believe has been accomplished.

How do you explain the draconian measures to curtail any and all publication and broadcasting of holocaust dissenting facts and opinions?

H.F. Wolff

|2.26.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Mr Markworth,

Have you ever seen/read a play entitled "Twelve Angry Men"? It is about a jury deliberating a conviction of murder. 11 people are for conviction. There is one hold-out. You must read it to discover what happened and why.

If the H had happened as claimed it would be a relatively minor occurrence of mass slaughter throughout history. The question remains: Why is this one the BIG ONE for which any dissenting fact and opinions are opposed with such draconian measures. I know why, but do you?

Perhaps you could refer me to some sources of pro-H scientific and forensic facts?

One more thing, the reason blogs and opinions that are counter to the "self-evident facts" of the H do not discuss the other side is simply because the pro-H side has the entire mass media and Hollywood bleating for them.

You have never seen a movie or read an article in a main stream newspaper that showed what reasonably could have happened but flies in the face of the public stance, have you?

H.W. Wolff

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements