Amnesty International: no free speech for David Irving

[ASMarques]

A reply from Amnesty International, according to a poster in uk.politics.misc (first post on this thread) who wrote to them:

Dear Mr ........

Thank you for your email concerning Amnesty International's position on David Irving's arrest.

Amnesty International's position on the issue of 'Holocaust denial' is based on international human rights standards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, in Article 19, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, but that certain restrictions may be placed on that right if they are necessary for the respect of the rights of others; Article 20 states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

In line with this and other international human rights standards, Amnesty International works for the right to free expression and adopts as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of expression, however it will not adopt as prisoners of conscience people who are imprisoned for using hate speech to deliberately or recklessly incite acts of violence, discrimination, or hostility against another group.

The language used to advocate hatred is not always explicit or direct. Sometimes it uses euphemisms which, over the years, become well-known, such as denying the occurrence of the Holocaust and thereby alleging that the extensive documentation of the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying. Since Jews, Roma, gay persons, and disabled persons were the principal victims of the Holocaust and are still subject to discrimination, this can constitute advocacy of hatred and an incitement to discrimination and hostility against those groups.

In line with its normal practice, when applying the policy to individual cases, AI considers each case on its own merit. In cases where it determines that an individual who has been imprisoned for denying the Holocaust has, in effect, advocated hatred as described above, AI would not adopt them as prisoners of conscience. This is the reason why we will not adopt David Irving as a prisoner of conscience.

I hope that this explains our position and addresses your concerns.

With very best wishes and many thanks for your interest in our work.

[Radar]

I would ask AI if it were not possible for Holocaust revisionists as a group themselves to be the objects of hatred? It would seem that there is ample evidence of that.

Also AI is adopting as their own the hoary "denier" charge without explaining what it is that revsionists deny. They cannot do so because it would undermine their position.

[grenadier]

Amnesty International wrote:

The language used to advocate hatred is not always explicit or direct. Sometimes it uses euphemisms which, over the years, become well-known, such as denying the occurrence of the Holocaust and thereby alleging that the extensive documentation of the Holocaust is fraudulent and that its victims are lying. Since Jews, Roma, gay persons, and disabled persons were the principal victims of the Holocaust and are still subject to discrimination, this can constitute advocacy of hatred and an incitement to discrimination and hostility against those groups.

What, discussing the logistical and technical impossibilities of the alleged Holocaust is hate speech? Exposing atrocity propaganda is hate speech?
It is amazing the spin these people put on this BS. The bottom line is that
if the Holocaust had been about the Roma, gay people and handicapped,
but not about the jews, one would be able to discuss it freely, without fear of being thrown in jail. The problem is that the zionists have created
a zone free of criticism for anything jewish or israeli. Just see the pressure
they put on professor Tony Martin, who is negro, because he was
exposing the strong jewish involvment in the slave trade. Here is the link to the controversy:
http://www.blacksandjews.com/2nd.pgMartin.html
Even jewish authors might suffer tremendous pressure if they deviate from the "party-line". Check out Prof. Finkelsteins' latest work, "Beyond Chutzpah".
The sad truth is that Democracy as we would like to have it, is but an
illusion. Read Noam Chomskys "Manufacturing Consent" and
"Necessary Illusions : Thought Control in Democratic Societies" for that.

[chammer]

You mean the same Amnesty that side with tookie and embraced his 'cause'?
I'm glad they are on the other side after all.

[code yellow]

I realy can't understand how some people allow themselves to be so gullable.So,according to amnesty,Irving's writings incited such hatred as to lead to hostility and violence.So'where are the beat-up jews?

The holocaust is part of an historical subject and should be open to scrutiny as such,and yet,it isn't allowed?I can't remember the name of the writer who published a book a couple of years ago validating the bombing of Dresden,wich was openly accepted,but you can't have an adverse view about the holocaust,and don't hand me any crap about defaming the dead.

The perpetraitors of this hoax are deliberately defaming their own.Open your eyes.If you are going through the trouble of enforcing laws,beating and harrasing writers and their families,black listing books from major bookstore venues,then it isn't about hatred.No one goes through this much trouble unless they are nervous about a big lie being uncovered.