Holocaust Denial Criminalisation | Prof Deborah Lipstadt | Proposition 

Indeed. If you write specific words about Holocaust casting doubt of the official version, the comment is erased.

@@nachopulp my comment was just removed 😆

If one person denies holocaust for that same person he will deny other religions genocide.

Comments are open but censored

By some miracle it hasnt been scrubbed yet

Denying the Holocaust isn’t offensive or politically incorrect. It’s flat out dangerous.

@@danperkins9381 To a fascist, open and free speech is 'dangerous' of course! But to an open and free society, there is no danger in freely discussing something, unless you are trying to cover something up.

@@melissagreen_ Well, it’s hateful to Holocaust victims, you dick.

@@danperkins9381 Well, you wouldn't know because you don't want anyone discussing it, LOL.

​@Dan Perkins you're hyperbole is showing.

Exactly, it makes me think 💭

Really?! Because if a Muslim said the Holocaust never happened, conservatives would be losing their fucking minds.

@@danperkins9381 Yeah, and conservatives never advocated for Holocaust criminalization despite this.

whaaaat. Germany got it right in the past im sure theyll get it right this time. Whats the worst that could happen?

Voltaire:I may not agree with the person's views but I will fight to the death for their right to say it

Well said. If it hadn't been for these laws and this case then i probably never would have investigated it in the first place.

Aaron Richards Really? I see. Enjoy imagining that you're right. Sorry I forgot the :)

Did you bother to watch the video? Prof. Lipstadt is NOT in favour of laws criminalizing Holocaust Denial at all. Nor is she in favour of government deciding what is truth etc., in fact she thinks that is a very bad thing. And by the way what do you think of Irving's attempt via a libel suit to silence Prof. Lipstadt. Do you think that is "very fishy"?

Pierre Cloutier

Chris Duane

I think he is in prison...

Lol but it is not funny ;-)

+ Lane Eardink No...you didn't think. That's why such stupidity leaks from your words.

Jake Ryan were you trying to share something before you decided to exchange pleasantries?

Nobody could debate Irving. Just a personal opinion

he lost in a court case

Maybe because Irving was found to be completely and utterly full of shit.....

​@@bloodyplebsthe courts are stackt against the poor

@@pavelusa3423 yes, because the ONLY reason he lost was because he didn’t have as much money… It can’t possibly be because of the fact that Irving decided, despite no training as a lawyer (I’m any shape or form) he would represent himself. Not could it possibly be that he was unable to prove he was not a Holocaust denier. It was all just to do with the money…sure buddy…

@@pavelusa3423 are they also “stackt” against the illiterate?

@Chocolatito Maravilla I noticed. I feel like the enemy have certain people flagged when using certain words

@Jack Stucki insane

Your reliance on a logical fallacy known as the Galileo gambit speaks volumes.

@@mattmunroe9901 the Galileo gambit doesn't really apply to my comment.

Johnson Riviera just for the record, it does. But why do you think it doesn’t apply?

@@mattmunroe9901 one is skepticism, the other is claiming oneself to be correct because it's against the grain... I'd go with being skeptical

There shouldn't be, but there are. It's called "The Racial Discrimination Act of Australia".

Again Irving sued Lipstadt for libel.

Lipstadt had nothing to do with Irving being locked up for his speech.

How fucking dumb are you exactly?

Irving tried to get a book pulped from 1996 through to the Lipstadt trial in 2000 because he didn't like its content. He waged a years long battle to silence the thoughts and opinions of not just Deborah Lipstadt, but other people that called him out for his denial of documented history. He is precisely the last person on the planet that gets to argue about the importance of free speech.

@@neilkruse835 He was the only serious historian to research original primary German documents. Those shameful academic "professors" paid up to £100,000 each to testify against him and secure their grants were unable to speak fluent German. Irving was self taught, 100% fluent in German. Irving's mistake was single handedly taking on several leading Zionist barristers on his own. Had several other people such as myself been able to back him up with research during the course of the trials he would have won. In fact I sent a challenge to Lipstadt to engage Irving in a one hour debate about the trial but she doesn't want to give him the platform. Sure Debby babes. In other words you know he would destroy you.

@@johnhickton7944 I knew he had access to leading Germans from the time because he was actually seeking truth not a narrative

No point made here, there or anywhere.

David Irving? Who? The one who said Bombing of Dresda caused 300.000 deaths? And then is he the one condemned by a tribunal for spreading false historical news?

Yeah but Schopenhauer was such perv! 😂who listens to that d bag

She’s calling for it not to be criminalized you dolt

And John Lennon said, "Let it be". SO WHAT? Antisemite much?

The people arguing against her

She started it with her accusations of dishonesty and slander of Mr. Irving's good name.

Someone sent him a letter, there is no conclusive proof it was Lipstadt though. You want it to be her, you want to demonize her. But wanting something doesn’t make it true.

I too had a day when I buried my daughter if I had received a nasty letter from her that day we would not have to have this conversation about Lipshits

She is an evil zionist puppet

@@mattmunroe9901 then who else would it be, just before trial?

yeah, don't believe her... Jews don't really want freedom of speech

Anti Semitism is a mental illness

@@Renbencannan no

@@nunomartins2209 yes

@@Renbencannan nope

Again Irving sued Lipstadt for libel.

What do you call all the camps, witness testimonies, Einsatzgruppen and perpetrator confessions then?

Why is this always brought up regarding Jewish people? What is wrong with you weirdos?

@@jplb96 well now mr Jp, Deborah tends to stretch much of the truth along with many of her brethren

@@jplb96 what is wrong with you? you who believe that you are gods chosen ones,the height of arrogance knows no bounds.

Voltaire never said those words, or anything remotely similar. Stop trying to sound smart by attributing quotes of American white supremacists to French poets!

Nope, he never said that.

Wanda Meadows Irving took Lipstadt to court to try and silence her and remove her freedom of speech. Of course she is going to be talking about how important it is, after having had hers threatened.

Did you even watch the video?! Its totally the opposite you are saying. David Irving SUED her in the UK because she used her free speech right to call him a Holocaust Denier. He lost. End.

We don't need holocaust denial laws cause the Zionist already have plan in place if you deny the holocaust.....name calling and political and financial pressure against anyone who doesn't buy the whole holocaust narrative hook...line..and sinker

​@@mattmunroe9901where does she get all that money she used to win a court case??

@@pavelusa3423 Well, if you knew anything about the case, you would know that Irving sued her AND her publisher, Penguin Books. And Penguin books is a huge company, employing some 100,000 people with a revenue of roughly €3.4 billion in 2020. I believe that will answer your question.

You know that at that time the Jewish newspapers of New York were depicting the Tsar as a rooster ready to be slaughtered on Yom Kippur? Now we can understand what happened after.

@@alejandrosotomartin9720 There was no Tsar during the Holodomor (the Bolsheviks saw to that). So your comment cannot make sense.

No, Aaron. True scientists, as holocaust deniers absolutely are, think one strange testimony is enough to debunk thousands of them. It is very scientific to ignore thousands of documents that match these testimonies perfectly, don't you know that? When they claim all these documents are forged, they just are, Aaron. Doesn't scientific authority mean anything to you anymore? Why would you even question them?

Aaron Richards STFU DUMMY

***** Of course YOU'VE read these DOCUMENTS haven't you LMAO

What's worse denying it ever happened or agreeing they had every right to defend their country from a devious enemy?

Beyond idiotic

In his fucking books.

Didn't he say he couldn't find original source documentation?

This has to be one of the least informed comments I have read. Which, when referring to deniers, really says something. It was a civil trial, which he brought against Lipstadt, which are alway trued by a judge. Even if there had been a jury, there would still have been a judge who has the right to overrule the jury. Irving also, for whatever reason, chose to represent himself with no legal training or experience.

No, but even if he was, he would agree with Lipstadt in this instance and would not provide the second side. The other speeches are all available on this channel.

@@neilhardman7973 Thanks Neil for speaking for Mr. Irving. Are you connected with him somehow? Are you his spokesman that asked if Mr. Irving would agree with Ms. Lipstadt here? My understanding is that Ms. Lipstadt refused to debate Mr. Irving on these important issues. Usually this refusal is based on cowardice. Thanks for replying.

@@garyvanarsdale3142 No I am not a spokesperson. I am however literate and have read/heard both of them speak on this topic. This is a debate on whether Holocaust denial should be criminalised. Lipstadt is here speaking against decriminalisation and Irving has spoken against when he was arrested in Austria. Maybe if you paid a bit more attention to the video you were commenting on, you'd be aware this is debating free speech, not the erroneous denial of the holocaust itself?

They would not debate each other on this issue. They would both be in agreement for mostly the same reasons.

Ahead of her? She's in her late 70s looks like. She made herself famous but claims her life was put on hold to fight her fight. Whether she is right or not, making this her career was more beneficial than just being a teacher so she's another one making yheir name on the tragedy of ww2 whole claiming its some sort of vocation she must persist in.

​@@dogwklre holocaust?industry..finkelstein..qui bono

It’s not illegal to “question it”, just to deny it. It’s high time certain people learnt the basics of the English language, and the laws they confess hatred of. Other genocides are subject to the same laws, do you question those too?

@@mattmunroe9901 You're defending the indefensible: censorship of ungood thoughts.

@@garyvanarsdale3142 what part of the above reply makes you think I am Dede ding anything? I am merely pointing out that the majority of deniers don’t actually know the basic facts, or have a decent enough grasp of language to make a salient and erudite reply that does anything for their “cause”, that is all.

@@mattmunroe9901 These discussions never go anywhere. It is abhorrent to imprison anyone, anywhere for believing in or denying any interpretation of historical events. If I'm misinterpreting your point-of-view, you have my apologies.

@@garyvanarsdale3142 I am in know way defending anything. I don’t believe that laws making denial of any genocide (that is what anyone means when they talk about “historical events”) illegal are a good thing. However, they exist (in about 17 European countries) and certain people need to deal with this fact. They also need to learn that said laws don’t mean anything happened, or did not happen, with regards to ANYTHING that occurred in the past.

Bwhahaha... well said

Again Irving Sued Lipstadt for libel. So just who was trying to criminalize a thought?

p00pyp4nts both are logical fallacies known as the Galileo gambit.

Did you even try? SHE IS TALKING AGAINST CRIMINALIZING HOLOCAUST DENIAL. Morons everywhere.

Again Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. So just who was fearing investigation, discussion and research?

RU-vid's algorithms delete holocaust denying comments. I guess that's why she can afford arguing against criminalization. She knows social media platforms will do the job for her.

wait, what?

Disagree in the strongest terms. All sides to historical narratives must be learned to gain knowledge. Those who support censorship support tyranny.

Lipsync I mean lipstadt has a lot of financial backers,nouf said methinks

did she allow Irving to question her on the stand?

@@pavelusa3423 Irving sued both Lipstadt AND her publisher, Penguin. It was the international company he tried to Sue that had the money.

@@dpjbdpjb Irving took her to court. Had he wished to call her as a witness and question her, he would have been within his legal right to do so. He clearly chose not to.

That is the only way they can keep from losing in a factually based debate by avoiding it

@@tjerkbakker4778 in other words, truth tellers. Your smear says it all. Anti-semitism is any truth the Semites are trying desperately to hide.

Such a shallow reply. I mean, the racist overtones are clear for all to see, but really? Your first criticism is the appearance of some actors. Your second is an event that has no bearing on any legal proceedings. However, if it it did, your dates are wrong, as is the age of his daughter you have stated. His 32 year old daughter died in 1999, the court case was in 1996. Why is being so ill-informed such a badge of honour amongst the supporters of Irving and deniers of the Holocaust?

He can't :)

In what way?

Questioning is fine, and not against any law. It is outright denial that is the issue here. Questioning and denial are, by there very definitions, 2 rather separate actions.

Yeah. It's suspicious af for a government and all of its representatives to bury anyone and burn any facts about a certain event. This is criminal behavior

Speaking of "muppets" 🙄

+Jake Ryan _"only the "ignorant" who still try to defend such a laughable farce"_ Which is why people like you support Irving and his load of bullshit? You'd like to think you have a monopoly on superior knowledge, when in reality the only thing you have a monopoly on is ignorance, simpleton.

Silencing others that do not agree is contrary to Freedom, it is the preferred weapon of those that have built a life around manipulation & deceit. It is the worst trait anyone with power could have. Not listening is fine. Not agreeing is fine. Not wanting to answer, pleading the 5th is fine. Telling others they are not allowed to discuss & debate certain issues is down right evil. Freedom of Speech is not recognized & valued because you agree with everyone's view. Its valued & respected because of the contrary, the fact that not everyone agrees on everything and just because you dont agree is not a just reason to silence them. Freedom of Speech is not forcing anyone to listen. The only reason you would silence anyone is if you had something to hide & did not want others hearing about it.

Why don’t you defend yourself, jew?

Hair dye, not really difficult. : )

Jews come from all kind of people.

Red hair is very common among them. During medieval times they were often portrayed with red hair. As was Judas.

Actually, the maths really does “add up”. Firstly, the Jewish population of Europe (before the Nazis came to power) was around 9.5 million. Secondly, Many would say that the Holocaust began when the Nazis came into power, in 1933, and ended at the end of World War 2, 1945. This is roughly 12 years (or 4,380 days). Divide the 6,000,000 victims by the 4,380 days and you get 1,370 victims per day. There were, again, roughly 1,000 camps, divide the daily victim total (1,370) by the number of camps (1,000) and you get 1.37 victims, per camp per day. Logically, that is an insanely small and achievable number. And does not even take into account the ghettos and Einsatzgruppen (from whom we have incredibly detailed reports) which would shrink this number even more. The Haavara Agreement has no bearing on anything that happened, it was a small agreement (mainly financial), that benefitted Germany and was criticized by the majority of Jews worldwide. There is a lot that most definitely “checks out”, given a little time and research. Asking questions and denying are, by the very nature of the two actions, different things. Asking “But what does this document show us?” can never be the same as stating, outright “This document proves nothing happened”. You may be a self proclaimed “skeptic”, but your willingness to believe things that have no bearing, and to not use the little logic god gave you at birth doesn’t exactly help your argument.

Chris, I'm gonna be blunt. You come across as racist and condescending. These debates are educational, the people debating may, or may not actually hold the opinion they are speaking about, but that is entirely beside the point. The *debate* is what is important. Not everything is some conspiracy, and certainly not meant to use to secretly hate people. You're not "enlightening" me on anything worth knowing.

Nice try, you explain to me how this statement (quoted directly) "Organized Jewry are adept at propaganda techniques like 'controlled opposition' and occupying both sides of the dialectic." -isn't racist. "Organized Jewry are adept at propaganda techniques..." I can hear the undertones of contempt just dripping from your words in that sentence. I also get the idea I'm not the first to accuse you of racism. Instead of telling me that "I will have my awakening', why don't you go to a Jewish community and talk to people. Maybe just have a nice conversation with someone and realize that your attitude and pathetic claims of "unfettered discussion" is no justification or excuse for blind hatred. If that's impossible for you then please keep your comments to yourself.

Okay, I realize you're inability to confront Man's brutality. It's pretty hard to stomach. I'm sorry you're having trouble with that. I'm not going to respond anymore from this point forward. I am disinterested in continuing the conversation. Have a good life, and safe travels.

It is happening now - in Palestine.

+mujaku, I'm not Jewish. I understand one Rabbi saying that he believes these people were reincarnated to atone for those sins, but that is one man. The fact that 6 million or 30 million *human beings* were systematically sought out, tortured and annihilated is not forgivable for any reason. I have done a lot of research on this subject, and many people have opinions on the matter, including outright denial that it ever happened as you can see in the comments posted on this video and in this very thread. But the fact of the matter is that it was a terrible event in history that must be learned from in order to prevent it from happening again. I'm sure we can agree on that. Mein Sohn That's horrible :(

Better than being the vile slug that wrote the comment I am now replying to…lol!

Zechariah Williams Leuchter’s “forensic” testimony is complete and utter junk. He was in no way, shape or form qualified to conduct such tests. He did not do so legally, he hid information from those who required it, his sampling techniques were flawed beyond belief and some of the assumptions he jumped to (especially regarding the amount of space required by a single human) were laughable. Rely on his lies if you want to, but it reflects more on your lack of education than the actual truth.

@@mattmunroe9901 What do you mean "he did not do it legally"?

Gregory Malchuk he didn’t have permission from anyone to do it. He was, in effect, stealing his “samples”.

penguins inadiorama He has a Bachelor of Arts in History. He is not qualified as an engineer, despite what he says. What exactly are you qualified to do? Are you qualified to copy and past random passages from websites? You have done, but doing something doesn’t mean you are actually qualified to do it. Lots of people are qualified, I am qualified. But I am not qualified to write a detailed, chemical analysis of anywhere. Neither was he. P.S. When copying and pasting from websites it is customary to delete the citation reference numbers, as they only make sense if you include the actual citations. Which leads me to wonder what you are actually “qualified” in.

penguins inadiorama you have a few degrees? What in, exactly? The wiki page? Really!? I never said that Fred did the tests, he collected the samples though, in a very unscientific manner, and did not tell the lab what the samples were. He smuggled his samples out of Poland. None of his methods were even vaguely scientific. Partly because he has no scientific qualifications. Being qualified and being knowledgeable are 2 different things. Being knowledgeable about something does not make you qualified, especially not to write a scientific paper about something. P.S. Read the wiki page and it will tell you the report is pseudoscience, unless you only believe wiki when it suits you?

Little Traveller she may have been the one who attacked him but he was the one to take her to court and attack her free speech. Not the other way around.

Jewish god and Christian god = one in the same. You criticize one, you criticize the other.

Canaanites have no god. Yahweh is the God of the white man.

@@mattmunroe9901Not even remotely true, as Jews reject Christ; one third of the Christian Triune God

@@gamerhours2815 They reject christ/jesus/the son (he is not god), they do not reject his father/god. Both religions believe in the god of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob. As an aside, the “son of god” was born to Jewish parents. It seems like an odd bill to die on, insisting they are 2 separate gods, but you do you buddy.

@@mattmunroe9901 Very ignorant response. In Catholic theology, there is one God, who exists as three distinct persons who share the same essence : 1. the Father; 2. the Son; and 3. the Holy Spirit. Hence, the ‘triune’ God, or ‘trinity’.

@Mitch Richards Type the whole thing again 3 times whilst holding your breath.

@Mitch Richards ...another shill with zero content btw......post us something mate...make us believe you exist.

@Mr. White You're absolutely correct.

…unless…it means the historical event did not actually take place…but that would mean… …the use of logical fallacies in your argument. So…

Have you spoken to Lipstadt? Not sure how you can call her a scoundrel if you haven't... Unless one remembers that anyone can read what another person says, or watch a video of their speeches, without ever having met them. Not sure how you think she is a paradox, while passing judgement yourself.

What for? Taking someone to court in an attempt to sue them because we he didn’t like what was said about him?

You're well off the mark Marxist. @@mattmunroe9901

True. He’d better hope for God’s forgiveness

What for, exposing the truth?@@LigetiVoy

@@grahamherbert3612 What truth do you assume he has “exposed”?