Holocaust Denial Criminalisation | Sir Richard Evans | Proposition 

please see the above comment

Jon Aichs I agree 100percent

If you criticise children suffering from leukaemia I’d say you’d get a fair bit of blowback but of course they don’t rule over us, what a ducking vacuous copypasta this is to try sound like you’ve cracked the code when you’re no better than a brain dead wine mom, I’ll listen to the accomplishes academics on this thanks

mjakes20 The obvious difference is that criticising sick children ( whatever that may mean) is your attitude to an obvious physical condition, while having a different opinion on historical matter, where are still a lot of documents to be studied - is a totally another thing. It a predefinition and predisposition of any scientific opinion. Such a disposition towards history has been applied only in totalitarian states.

@@sizif717 No the defence of Holocaust denial that proposes that it's a matter of genuine historical disagreement which should be aired openly and not smothered is a smokescreen for antisemitism given that there is actually widespread academic historical consensus about its occurrence, scale and scope based on a vast body of documentary, eyewitness and other evidence. It is the best documented genocide in history, yet given that Holocaust deniers specifically single it out as opposed to say, the Srebrenica or Rwandan genocide, shows their disgusting ulterior motives.

Oiy Vei, you’re nothing but an anti semite! You can’t say that! Ohhhhhhh, if I vas a rich man, Adadel diddle diddle diddle diddle doo~~~

Aww, sad you can't spread your filthy anti-semitism, eh?

Pretty much yeah.

Kids with cancer?

You mean the Khazarian crypto-Satanist blood-drinking ritual murderer and human sacrificer?

Freedom to think is next

Freedom of speech has long gone. Freedom to debate has gone because you can’t say what think and believe, so freedom of think has already gone.

I completely agree! Im Jewish and despise Deniers but it shouldnt be against the Law to be Deluded.

And you are now proven right. Oppression begins with censorship.

@@VALIS538 It's been here for a few years. Thought police knocking on the door early Sunday morning, precrime police arresting pregnant mothers for posting on social media and on the ratrace goes.

How did you comment if you are speechless?

@@saxglend9439 maybe after a few minutes of being speechless

@@omega0195may be vpn

Speechless, that’s what you’re country wants for you to literally be speech-less under threat of jail

@@saxglend9439 well, it was Typed..

it would upset the status quo terribly

Correctly

Plus he already did a speech at Oxford, it's not on their channel though.

Thanks for the info found it on youtube

Likely because Evans is an historian and Irving a revisionist.

The truly shocking part of all of this is that those who want it criminalized put forth the serious argument that to question received wisdom on the matter will inevitably lead to atrocities of the very sort which are principally being questioned! Really thinking through this logic would suggest that if everyone woke up tomorrow believing the Holocaust didn't happen exactly as official historians say it did, that this will lead, directly and inevitably, to a real/another Holocaust happening. Yet, they never explain how or why this should happen. There is no explained mechanism for why this should be so. And there is no logical reason whatsoever as to why this should happen, yet, it is the precise basis, the only basis, for laws against questioning the narrative! I'm sure people would be upset if they all came to believe the Holocaust was exaggerated or misrepresented. But would they then be compelled, inexorably, to commit a real one as a result?

What a scam.

So technically it was outlawed after the war since 1985 and 1992 comes after 1945.

Yes, I thought the same thing. "After the war" implies right after it ended. Otherwise why would he mention it at all, since he talks about it beforehand.

@@lambadaglover1011 obv. He meant immediately after the war or soon after. Moron.

3 years jail in Germany if you talk about the past and holocaust story

M S In Austria, Wolfgang Fröhlich, a graduate process engineer, was recently released after nearly 15 years of imprisonment, for writing an expertise about the chambers and for repeatedly petitioning politicians, judges and bishops from within prison. In Germany, Horst Mahler, a defense lawyer, is currently serving a total sentence of 10 years for repeated offenses questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust as well as for filing requests to produce evidence during “Holocaust denial trials.” During his incarceration, his health deteriorated enormously and one of his legs had to be amputated.

Not all countries have laws for the Holocaust. Also if you look at a map and see which countries have laws about the “Historical event”, it’s usually a country, who survived through N@zi occupation. Like Poland, the reason they have laws about it is because of all the polish Jews that suffered in death camps. It’s disrespectful to Poland, same with many countries like Lithuania, Russia and France. Which experienced and had citizens killed, r@ped and starved to death. Use your brain and stop defending a N@zi. Your denying or down playing the Holocaust, your defending N@zis. All the family’s, that had there towns, neighbours, friends and family killed. Your a N@zi, dumbass

Oy vey!

... never happened but it should have

Because it’s fictitious.

+bookman0362 Great to hear he is indeed fine. Do you happen to know if he will still be trying to speak in the Netherlands? And if so, where to find info on it? Thx.

+bertjesklotepino hi. He's just done a major tour. Not sure if Netherlands was on it. Keep an eye on his website. You can sign up for notifications. www.fpp.co.uk/ Keep up the fight for Real History :-)

Good for you for selling his work. People should be able to question everything.

+Lady Jersey thank you. What most people don't realize though is that D. Irving is not a holocaust historian. He's a WWII historian who doesn't give you the old cliches. His involvement with the holocaust is minor, but because he's become well=known he's used by the media as a whipping-boy,

+bookman0362 I'm really pleased to here that; send him my regards.

Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov Just for interest’s sake (as I monitor the continual infringement on the freedom of information in Europe): In which country are you located?

I'm starting to think we can't fully trust Bitchute either

@@LukeLovesRose it's not about believing or not believing, Agree or disagree with something, it's about freedom of speech, no one should be incarcerated for freedom of speech/ thought

@@jamie25288 Obviously. Luckily, everyone here in the States can rest easy... for now. But our enemies are going to destroy all Freedom of Speech in their great reset.

@@jamie25288 freedom of speech doesn't mean you can abuse it or lie....

@@yossielevitsky9757 I mean it does.

You stole this comment and didnt even care to mention who actually said the quote 😂

@Null Null yup '82 fort bragg eerie indiana

“Kagan.”

It is most important not to try and stifle others doing just that.

Standing up is fine.Thinking anything is fine without advers action.But making a crime of it is wrong! Im Jewish btw.

Hitchens “Fire” speech is more poignant.

@@sharonlee4773 You understand that it’s precisely these kinds of laws that make people hate you, right?

@@NoahBodze Nobody hates me,I'm Divine Darling!

Nobody silencing the Khazars

Good point. But don't give them ideas

I'm sorry. But it's gonna be that way here in the States... after their great reset.

@Rappa Kalja Misinformation? Is that what you petty assholes call alternative facts now?? Post-Covid BS?

@Rappa Kalja False statements? Like what?

Yes because down playing or denying the Holocaust and defending Nazis is free speech

@Edmund Halling He lost because the young judge didnt want to rule in favour of a spicy historian with groundbreaking revisions for fear of career suicide. And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial. Its rich hearing numbskulls like you declare others as delusional.

David Irving literally defended Hitler omfg. He is not a great achievement, he is a disgrace and definitely not a historian

@@daddy9294 Clearly you are not familiar with his works. Or you wouldnt spout such lies. Educate yourself before sitting at the table.

"And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial." Wrong, Irving sued _her_ and the publisher over what she wrote about him in Denying the Holocaust.

Better than goose stepping fanatics with armbands.

@@mitchrichards1532 Seems like you get your history from the history channel.

@@greischwitz Nope, you? Bitchute? TGSNT TV? Lol

@@mitchrichards1532 bitchute has some truth but history channel has 0 truth Tell about havara agreement

@@godbless5636 I put zero stock in either of those options, if you do, you're a moron. Havara agreement? How about you tell me your own knotsie version first? Lets hear what you choose to subscribe to. lol

Robert Faurisson , French academic, was punished also, for his research over German and holocaust , if Einstein Albert Einstein , Theoretical physicist was forbide for his research, devising his theory of relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, gravity, and the universe , what could happened

Ayan baddie Fucking idiot

@@amazingmagmorter You're afraid

They seem to only invite historians.

Because he’s a total fucking jackass.

Hes been disproved

There is only 1 God. And your god does his laundry for him.

lol best comment

I feel the same way! There has been others that have tried to 'ban' certain people or topics and tbh many spring to mind that I 100% dislike their views and rubbish they spew....however, I dislike those 'thought police' and people trying to stifle freedom of speech far more! Didn't their parents ever teach them that they do not have to listen or follow disliked views or people. Just because they do not want to hear those views should not mean they can dictate to others that they can't either. The concept of 'political correctness' and some elusive dictators deciding what does/does not constitute 'correct' speech and yet those same defenders of 'political correctness' will also proclaim themselves to be defenders of 'freedom of speech'. "you are free, free to do and say what we tell you" Meanwhile, if you defend actual freedom of speech you are suddenly accused of supporting whatever ideas are being expressed which is nonsensical logic. If a person wants to rant about flying pigs being real and shape shifting lizards living in every bush, I will defend their right to express those ideas and doesn't mean I am supporting the ideas. I can defend everyone's right to believe in any fairytale they choose, whether religious dogma, legends, myths or fabricated history (sadly appears to be majority of human history is flights of fancy, not just regrading ww2) or the dominating 'theoretical sciences' with as much ideology, political and corporate $$$ standing as anything and little to do with genuine scientific inquiry........however ....who am I to tell someone else what is 'their truth' and what to believe. Everyone will proclaim 'its a fact'. The word 'fact' is perhaps the most misused/abused word in our language. Reminds me of a quote from the movie 'The Princess Bride'-“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

Just do the maths ,

Voltier....

It's already illegal in some countries

Amazing watch. Same with communism by the backdoor and greatest story never told

Europa, produced by a 22 yr old kid with no formal education. He used open source imagery from the internet and added his own BS narrative. You guys think that was some sort of major production led by a respected academic? lol

@@mitchrichards1532 respected academic 😂😂😂😂 you don’t get it do you. The documentary is about giving a alternative version of history different to the so called truth all the so called respected academics tell you who by the way all tell the same version of events that the powers that be have designed for them to tell.

@@casuallad735 Sure George, why don't you go to a 22 yr old uneducated amateur kid for dental work, or let one give you legal advice? It takes professional training, education and experience to call one's self a professional. If you believe "Tobias Bratt" to have been qualified to teach you History when he was 22, good for you. Sounds to me like you're a sucker for a good story that makes you feel like you know something other people don't. You have real insight don't you.... lol

@@mitchrichards1532 Your kvetching is genuinely hilarious.

Denying a murder that has very little physical evidence to back it up is absurd?

@@LukeLovesRose what are u saying? “A murder that has very little physical evidence”. What’s that supposed to mean? Are u denying it?

@@barackobama0101 Damn straight. There is very little physical evidence that adds up to mass murder

You obviously haven't done the Research

Or… weak people should be ignored and speech should be protected at all times.

yes, it would be antisemitism. because you are criticizing a blanket term called "jewish politics". how about you criticize the policies of individual jews like benjamin netanyahu? or george soros? but when you extend your disapproval to an entire group of people "the jews", youre obviously an antisemite.

Felix Bloxham perhaps change your phraseology to zionist. And bty the way the other group you are looking for is shia islamists. DON'T ever question THEIR beliefs of pedophillia, polyamy, jihad or death to the infidels. It strikes me as strange zionists are creating havoc world wide forcing western democracies to take all these "refugees" full well knowing islam and jews DO NOT GET ON. But then, hey, the zionists threw the jews to the nazis in WW2. Who the fuck am I?

@@holocaustdocuments2553 first u have to be semite

Lovely comment that dodges the algorithms of those who hate free factual, scientific evidence and speech

David Irving is not a “revisionist” unless you consider trying to find information to “prove” that Hitler disapprove or didn’t know about the mass killing of the Jews, so revisionist

So he denied it, in other words. Do you have to practice talking bollocks, or does it just come naturally to you?

+Stefan_Tomislav_Tvrtko zero valid arguments? Who's books have you read on the subject?

Zero valid arguments ? Don't tell me , you're one of these people who take their news and facts from John Oliver?

Mike Flagger Yeah, right! oliver is not even that funny- he is passable at best, and as for his ''knowledge'' of the topics he discusses and TRIES to turn into comedy (and usually fails), the least said the better! Do you really believe that people hear about the Holocaust from John Oliver?? What about thousands of books written by scholars, photos, documents, testimonies, lectures, courses....

bookman0362 shouldn't thee most ''successful'' denier David Irving be enough? Do I really need to read tons of unsubstantiated drivel just to form an opinion? There are only WORSE deniers than irving- he is the most skillful and the sneakiest of the bunch!

Sure , go ahead.

Harry Smith and now the evidence proving its non existence isn’t available no more. They’re being censored and deleted.

Nope.... You criminalize the public denial of established fact when its used to incite hatred against a specific group. What you wrote is self-serving BS to distort the issue. Obviously you're a bigot and a knotsie fanbois.

@@mitchrichards1532 “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” That's you.

@@curiouser-and-curiouser Nope, that's you because you don't like what I had to say. I learned historical method in a Masters Degree program a long time ago and it evolves, revises, etc. accordingly to remain THE method of researching, analyzing, and interpreting History. Deniers do not use it because it exposes their claims and fraudulent methods for what they are. Historical Method, I suggest you look it up, and perhaps the related courses involved in attaining an advanced degree. Get a clue on who and what you call ignorant and see how comical your comment is.

I can only guess you haven't heard or read anything about Irving or revisionist literature.evidence is stacked on 1 side if the person is genuine

non sequitur. you have no examples to back this ridiculous statement of yours.

No-one in his right mind would ever claim the Katyn massacre was part of the Holocaust, sunshine, and no judgement on the subject was ever made at Nuremberg. You are talking bollocks.

Irving dominated the court case… Debbie had 8 million dollars in “experts” and got beat in court anyhow. David knew he’d never win the defamation case. Everyone with sense in that courtroom knew he was the honest party in the end, so that was the win. Stupid people will blindly believe what they are told. Honest people will be called names by stupid people. History is like that.

@@zackattack635 Nope, the court transcripts and all the evidence used against him is available online. What you're selling and what that material clearly demonstrates are two very different things. You're a knotsie fanbois, good luck with that.

"Hate Speech" is intended to leverage freedom of speech in order to infringe on the target's freedom. Wake up

Except it’s fucking not and he’s also not a credited historian.....

ThatGuyNoOneKnows exactly.

ThatGuyNoOneKnows “also not a credited historian” of course he isn’t you complete imbecile. He’s going against the false narrative he’s obviously going to receive massive backlash. What historian would would be inspired by him? Their reputation would be destroyed. You’re an absolute tool/bellend

FreckleHeckler Yes, exactly. Who would "credit" him if this would mean that they both be out of job and likely taken to trial?

ThatGuyNoOneKnows anyone remember that show that brought holocaust survivor on a show. I couldn’t stop laughing zionists really think we’re stupid

I forgot to mention it was Dr Larson he was the WW 2 patologist

who makes the movies ? who creates laws so one cannot debate this subject matter, these people tell you if you question them and their fable that you are anti semitic how can one be thus when these fools posing as jews are not even Semitic boggles the imagination .

Nope, there are none from there either. Simon Wiesenthal tried to show pics of the Dresden destruction bodies being burned as a death camp. When those are actually remains of Germans being cremated.

You believe the story thats all.

It even shows you how stupid humans are. No wonder the small hats See themselves as superior.

Different opinion? As is distorting his sources and adding in things that they don't say and then falsely attributing the fake information to them? Irving is a liar, thats been proven.

@David Rosenberg You can try and separate the two, but its not going to work.

@@maryconroy1835 He represented his client to the best of his ability like a well-learned and professional barrister.

While I agree fully with his position on banning holocaust denial in any form I feel that I must disagree with his disscription of the trial, true he spent at least two if not tree years trawling through Irving's work trying to find falshoods and Irving certainly did suggest some of the things he mentioned but none of those things were proved to be false. No after three years trawling through Irving's vast volumes of work Evans built his case for falsifying history mainly on the details of a meeting with Hitler and how Irving could not have known Goering's facial expression after that meeting, Irving had written that Goering had smirked or something like that and had no evidence to prove it and therefore had fabricated history In truth that fact that someone as hostile as Evans was paid to be could find so little, is a great vindication of Irving's work, and the fact that David Irving has been somewhat marginalised is not something that Evans should be proud of.

​@@maryconroy1835 The example you bring up was more egregious than what you just described. Irving stated that AH dismissed a brownshirt leader for destroying Jewish property. In reality, AH objected to the brownshirts ransacking stores without wearing the party insignia, meaning that they were basically just looting and making the party look bad. And that was not the only example of Irving's distortions, there were many, many others. Also, it should be noted that Evans was acting as a professional witness for the defendant in a claim brought by Irving. Not only that, but Irving represented himself. The fact that he lost and was slapped with a massive costs order would come as no surprise to anyone with any degree of common sense.

@@elephantman2112 Yes I have heard of that one. another minor detail, perhaps an important one, that would be a matter of opinion depending a great deal on who was doing the translation from the original german archives. In THREE YEARS this is all that Evans has found! So in this case, with as you say a expert witness, Evans, being paid a great deal of money, the court who are not historians or experts in German rule against Irving who as you say was defending himself, seems like we are on the same page. Professional historians should be thrashing details like this out in open debate Perhaps you could give details of the "many many more" or is that just the usual smoke and mirrors?

@@maryconroy1835 That was not all Evans found, he issued a several-hundred-page report with his findings. The PDF is freely available online if you want to look at it. And Irving was not defending himself. He initiated proceedings. He would not have come up against a major publishing house in a court of law had he not done that. It was Irving who tried to stifle open debate by taking it to court. And he fell flat on his face and ruined himself financially in the process. Probably one of the funniest court cases of all time.

Irving is a proven liar, duplicitous, and a falsifier of facts. I find it deeply worrying you have tenure with that opinion.

@@ally11488 Nope. He was tried in a kangaroo court which has no validity whatsoever.

@@TheWildernessChannel Deluded. He brought the action, was happy to have a trial by judge and had right of appeal. Explain how it was "A kangaroo court", bearing in mind, as is the case with British libel law, the onus of proof was on Lipstadt?

@Edmund Halling You are clueless or simply disingenuous. The judge at that trial found Irving's arguments completely legitimate and valid but was forced to charge him nonetheless for daring to question the facts relating to the holocaust. He was being tried for questoning the facts not for the validity of his arguments. You are obviously not intelligent enough nor objective enough to actually realise that.

@Edmund Halling You poor soul. I am sure you are going to report me now to the thought police because I dare to have an opinion that you don't share. How pathetic.

Belief in freedom of speech

@@StonewallStacks wow

Probably 515,000 ish in 1930 within the borders at the time. Add in Austria, Sudetenland, and then annexed parts of Poland, and its over a million. Its close to beer math when you start peeling the onion.

You’re so easily lead by emotion and not reason.

Lipstadt calling Irving a Holo caust denier wasn't free speech?