11
Dec
2006
21 Comments
Iran explains it all
Nasser Karimi of the AP writes:
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran on Monday opened a Holocaust conference that it said would examine whether the genocide took place, claiming the meeting was an opportunity for discussion in an atmosphere free of Western taboos.
The conference, “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision,” was initiated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has described the Holocaust as a “myth” and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Are these people serious?
And by “Western taboos,” do they mean common sense?
Join the Conversation
What is with this guy? What is his point? Is he seriously on crack or something? What can come of this?
Geez…and the Iranians thought the Shah was bad. Wow.
Hey…how about a conference that air didn’t happen? Can’t see it (except in LA or Mexico City), smell it, taste it and people only claim it existed and exists.
This dude is a little weird. Does he not have a job? Wife? Too much time on his hand?
lol… these guys have way too much time and money on their hand… maybe if they use the money they are spending on this shit, they can feed more people in Iran.
I think it’s called freedumb of speech.
It’s funny how the Westerners were bitching about the way Muslims behaved after the cartoon incident and now…
Hypocritical assholes.
This is hilarious!
“..included David Duke — the former Louisiana state representative and Ku Klux Klan leader”
What?!! whats next, official conference of Pan Aryans against the Zionists?
Although the cartoons in the magazines were offensive, they were cartoons, done by an artist in a magazine. This is a state run conference!
It’d be interesting to see what actually went on in the conference and what evidences were brought forward, if any.
Oh but remember the case of the Westerners. There’s always an exception. You can’t legally deny the holocaust in certain European countries and you will be strongly condemned, even threatened, for doing so in North America, as was the case with, who was it, Noam Chomsky? Which is funny because he was born Jewish.
Esra’a-
And in Iran…it is interesting that AJ and a very few others are the ONLY ones that can say what they wish.
In democracies…there is not not full freedom of speech nor should there be (the old “is it OK to yell ‘fire’ in a crowed theater). I don’t think people should be allowed to make sexual references to children etc.
Personally…if people want to deny the holocaust…fine. What makes this a particular issue in Iran is, can say, the 20,000 Jews that live there get a fair shot at telling him what a dumb shit he is?
Of course they can…but oy will they ever get in trouble.
So like most things in life…it is not either or, but a matter of degree. I have a huge issue with highly exclusive free speech.
Jina, I haven’t heard of a mosque bombed or a Muslim killed because of that conference.Please point me to articles showing otherwise.
Condemnation and peaceful protest isn’t the same as violent riots and signs calling for people to be beheaded.
AntonGarou, you missed my point. Here is a hint, Freedumb of speech.
But Hindu temple was set on fire and Sikhs were beaten up, stabbed etc when Muslims did something. The work of the EDUCATED and WELL INFORMED Westerners I guess…
Now think about what the UNEDUCATED MUSLIMS would do when you insult their religion.
Then what you are proposing is not democracy.
You know how boring the world would be if people always protested peacefully. Sigh… reminds me of Canadian politics.
Esra’a: I am not sure Noam Chomsky has ever denied the Holocaust. I think you may be referring to Noam Finkelstein, also a Jew, who doesn’t deny the Holocaust, but rather puts forth an argument that the tragedy has been misused for political purposes mostly by Israel. Needless to say, having seen him in person and heard him, I am not thrilled of what he has to say. But his right to say it anyway.
The only two countries, I beleive, where Holocaust denial is a crime are Germany and Austria, and for the right reasons- Nazism came from Germany and was readily accepted in Austria. The laws there are meant as a measure to restrain and contain the right wing fascist extremists.
France, by the way, has recently made it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide…
Yeah, I think that’s who I meant.
However Anton said in a thread in our forums once that Chomsky is guilty of not wanting Israel to exist. And thus Chomsky was labelled an anti-Semite, as Amino once stated here in one of our most controversial articles about this subject.
So, when you label a Jew an anti-Semite, how does that work? It’s like calling a Muslim an infidel for not approving of religious fundamentalism.
If only the U.S would follow their lead.
Does anyone have a problem with this argument?
If you think Canadian politics is boring, you should check out Finland’s. I’ve had to study their politics for a political theory class and I wanted to throttle myself.
This can’t work without being fair and balanced. You can’t apply this to Jews, for example, yet anyone, anywhere can say whatever about Islam and Muslims. When it’s hate speech directed towards Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims, it’s “freedom of speech,” but God forbid if it’s directed against Jews, the U.S., or Israelis. It’s “unpatriotic,” it’s “anti-Semitism,” and of course, one cannot forget the “it’s justification and encouragement of terrorism.”
If there should be limited freedom of speech, apply it equally to all.
Rayis,
All I hope is that it ends up on YouTube.
Esra’a -
There’s a special word for Jews like Chomsky and Finkelstein. Kapo. Yes, they are anti-semites.
There are and should be restrictions on freedom of speech. Incitement to murder, for instance, should not be part and parcel of the whole freedom of speech thing. Words can and do kill.
And that’s the way it is in Israel – incitement to murder is forbidden, no matter from whom it comes or who is being incited against.
The whole Iranian Holocaust-denial obsession is part of a whole system of incitement to murder. It’s simple, really.
When you have huge crowds baying for Muslim blood on the streets, screaming “death to Arabs”, you will have a reason to complain. When there will be a whole system of demonization with the clear intent to murder every single Muslim in the West to which a good part of 1.5 billion people will adhere, you will have a reason to worry.
Please have some sense of proportion. Moral equivalence is a disease.
Guys! I am an Iranian and I think this is only a shameful pathetic action by a regime not supported by the Iranians. I am sorry. I apologize from anyone who is offended by this idiotic conference.
I wondering when Iranians can have the opportunity for discussion in an atmosphere free of IR taboos.
Arash-
You having nothing to apologize for…so please don’t. The way I see it…many Iranians were terribly betrayed many times…by the Brits. Americans (though both probably did save your asses from Stalin) and then by the great Ayatolah himself with his promises of freedom back in the late 1970′s.
Now you are trapped under the thumb of a brutal government that has ripped your country from the inside and aliened a good part of the world, at least the democratic world.
I live in an area that, I believe, has the largest Iranian population in the world, outside of Iran itself. I get many insights into what happened there. It is a disaster for Iran, for freedom and now becoming a disaster for the region and maybe the world.
But YOU apologize? Hell…any of us that do not admire your open mind and your courage are morons.
Be careful..be strong
“puts forth an argument that the tragedy has been misused for political purposes mostly by Israel.”
Does anyone have a problem with this argument?
Yes, I most certainly do. But not to get too off topic, as I like to stay on topic with these posts, I will not go to lengths here!
Chomsky, as far as I know, is against the idea of Israel existing as a Jewish state. This goes in parcel with his whole post-modernist paradigm of the world. He would rather Jews and Arabs live in a unitary, binational state.
Kapo, yes some Jews would call him that. Not me, since I know that he is no anti-semite simply because he is against the idea of a Jewish state of Israel.
Well, that’s extremely ridiculous. Anyone who isn’t a staunch supporter of Israel is an anti-Semite. People who support this idea are absurd, extremely misled, and quite frankly I feel sorry for them. It’s a horrible way of thinking and drawing conclusions. Even labeling them anti-Israeli is crossing the line. Am I any less Muslim or Arabic because I oppose what our governments do? When you think something is wrong, you reserve the right to question or say it, and no, it doesn’t make you a traitor. It makes you a normal human being with the ability to think without being misled like a flock of sheep.
So is blind nationalism.
Like I said, if you want to apply this rule, you need to equally apply it to all citizens. You can’t ban hate speech on Israelis but allow hate speech against Arabs and Muslims, for example, which in many countries seems to be the case. In fact when I went to a conference in Ukraine, a journalist there gave a speech called “It’s not hate speech if it’s directed against Arabs,” (sarcastic title,) and he pretty much filled the report with relevant examples from several different countries, the U.S was one of them, I believe Israel might have been another. Though the focus was mainly in Europe.
In any case, he couldn’t be more right. Any person who’s listening to what’s being said about mainstream Islam, and anyone who actually falls for these absurd and unbalanced claims, should admit this at one point or another. One day you will swallow your pride and be able to do this like many of us already do.
You know, the ancient Chinese used “may you live in interesting times” as a curse for a reason
.
I have made this argument before, and I will make it again: when speech leads to genocide then we have a problem. In the US, anti-Semistim exists, but it has not led to genocide or even to mass murder of Jews. In Europe, and in more countries than just Germany, this cannot be said to be the case.
Here is what I wrote awhile ago on another post:
Just for clarification, when we talk about “Freedom of Speech” are we talking about the First Amendment, or are we taking about some nebulous concept that validates every spoken word everywhere.
If we’re talking about the First Amendment, it’s not really “Freedumb of Speech”. I know it’s fun to say, because it’s a play on words, but the First Amendment is actually pretty cool.
Either way, I wouldn’t maintain that an Indian minister offering $11 million to anyone who murders the Danish cartoonist, is honestly validated by “freedom of speech”.
Ahh that 11 million thing. You can’t threaten to kill someone. You can’t use freedumb of speech to violate another person’s rights. There is a different between denying the holocaust and asking Israel to be whipped off the map.
I’ll bitch all day about what the Brits did to my people, but I won’t even think about killing the Brits who are alive right now. There is a difference.
If somebody wants to say they wish Israel would be wiped off the map…well go ahead.
When somebody tries to fire up people to riot, destroy and kill…well I do not see that as a free speech right.
It is not an either or situation and it gets more difficult as we hit grey areas. Years ago, for example, the ACLU, which is heavily supported by Jews, including my parents back in the day, sued Skogie, Illinois on behalf or either the Nazis or the KKK for preventing them from marching. These are organizations know for racism, violence, murder etc., but did this group of people have a right to express their opinions??? It was quite the controversy.
I call on all interested parties to submit an abstract for the conference Iran: Myth or Fiction?