# Holocaust Denier Seeks Refugee Status in Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794 "2003-02-22T17:07:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/21 "2003-02-23T14:23:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cart \* > \*\*Holocaust deniers appear to be like creation scientists in that they know their findings before they start. But I consider it a little distasteful the way that they are demonised. > > The most famous example in the UK is David Irving. He was in the news a few years back because he was suing someone for calling him a holocaust denier. In fact as far as I could make out he wasn’t making especially contentious claims, merely questioning minor details. But the way it was reported, you’d think he was Hitler himself. Of course, Irving didn’t help his case being filmed seig-heiling at a “neo-Nazi” rally.\*\* I would disagree with your interpretation of the evidence that came out at the trial, **cart**. The whole nature of Irving’s scholarship was thoroughly reviewed in the libel trial in England: [Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat, [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html#14). Penguin Books published a book by Deborah Lipstadt, in which she concluded that Irving denied that the Holocaust occurred. Irving sued for libel. In their defence, the defendants argued that what they had said was true: that Irving denied that the Holocaust occurred. One expert who testified on behalf of the defendants was Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge. He prepared a detailed analysis of Irving’s work; that report was over 700 pages long. The [Anti-Defamation League](http://www.adl.org/holocaust/irving.asp) quotes these two passages from the report: > [@](#): > > Penetrating beneath the confident surface of [Irving’s] prose quickly revealed a mass of distortion and manipulation in every issue we tackled that was so tangled that detailing it sometimes took up many more words than had been devoted to it in Irving’s original account. Unpicking the eleven-page narrative of the anti-Jewish pogrom of the so-called _Reichskristallnacht_ in Irving’s book _Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich_ and tracing back every part of it to the documentation on which it purports to rest takes up over seventy pages of the present Report. A similar knotted web of distortions, suppressions and manipulations became evident in every single instance which we examined. We have not suppressed any occasion on which Irving has used accepted and legitimate methods of historical research, exposition and interpretation: there were none. > > … > > It is clear from all the investigations which I and my research assistants have undertaken that Irving’s claim to have a very good and thorough knowledge of the evidence on the basis of which the history of Nazi Germany has to be written is completely justified. His numerous mistakes and egregious errors are not, therefore, due to mere ignorance or sloppiness; on the contrary, it is obvious that they are calculated and deliberate. That is precisely why they are so shocking. Irving has relied in the past, and continues to rely in the present, on the fact that his readers and listeners, reviewers and interviewers lack either the time, or the expertise, to probe deeply enough into the sources he uses for his work to uncover the distortions, suppressions and manipulations to which he has subjected them. The trial judge made similar findings: > [@](#): > > 13.101 It appears to me to be undeniable that most, if not all, of the statements set out in paragraph 9.5 reveal clear evidence that, in the absence of any excuse or suitable explanation for what he said or wrote, Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances… > … > 13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those instances may shed light on the question whether Irving’s misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate. > > 13.141 I have found that most of the Defendants’ historiographical criticisms of Irving set out in section V of this judgement are justified. In the vast majority of those instances the effect of what Irving has written has been to portray Hitler in a favourable light and to divert blame from him onto others. I have held that this is unjustified by the evidence. Examples include Irving’s portrayal of Hitler’s conduct and attitude towards the events of Kristallnacht and the importance attached by Irving to Hitler’s attitude towards the Jewish question as he claims is evidenced by the Schlegelberger note. I have seen no instance where Irving has misinterpreted the evidence or misstated the facts in a manner which is detrimental to Hitler. Irving appears to take every opportunity to exculpate Hitler… > > 13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving’s historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving’s partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants’ contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving… > … > 13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence. The [English Court of Appeal](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1197.html) dismissed an appeal from that decision. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/22 "2003-02-23T14:48:08Z")
Any figure inbetweeen rougly 3.5 and 7 million would be reguarded as academically correct. Most people go for the figure of 5.5 million given at the Nuremburg trials or the rounded 6 million version of that figure. The truth is due to the nature of the event we cannot put a definte figure, though all methods of counting would give you a figure in the order of the mid-millions. While these people are clearly motivated by hate, imprisoning them is wrong as could it could stop geniune historians from putting out versions of history that people dislike, even if they were factually correct. Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased) ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/23 "2003-02-23T15:10:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by candida \* > \*\*You know, from time to time, I really do feel as if these sorts of arguments beg “Who died that they made you God?” questions. > > The Germans are allowed their priorities which are allowed to be different from American priorities. \*\* I know Beagle can make his own responsse, but if I could jusst comment here. I don’t think anyone is denying the German’s have the right to do what they want, the question is should we deport a person back to a country that persecutes people for their beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/24 "2003-02-23T15:41:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies_ > \*\*Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased) \*\* Irving was not charged or convicted of any crime. As indicated in my previous post, Irving chose to sue Penguin Books and Ms. Lipstat for libel on the basis of their comments on his standards of scholarship, which is a civil action. He took them to court, not the other way around, and lost. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/25 "2003-02-23T17:10:42Z")
Nobody has to die to make you god in a debate. You defend your postion. Mine is that speech laws probably seems like a good idea in every authoritarian state that has them. Especially since criticism of the speech laws could fall under the speech laws. It’s amazing how the world criticizes the United States with insane vitriol, as if we are the devil incarnate. Meanwhile, I question one German law - as if Germany has an unblemished legal tradition - and I’m the bad guy. [/Tony Montana] The ‘world’ dishes out much better than it takes. I did not really want to go pick throught Zundel’s crap for this topic. If you all say that there is incitement to violence, I’ll at least sleep better knowing someone is going to jail for what they said. You all can pretend that there is no slippery slope. Just whistle as you walk past it. Meanwhile, I want some of the Stalinists who apologize for KJI - death camps and all - to be charged with a crime. Not really, but the hypocrisy is starting to cause an abrasion. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/26 "2003-02-23T20:26:53Z")
What kind of refuge is Zundel planning to find in Canada? Hate speech is one of the only issues that has been used as justification for restricting freedom of expression for the good of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/27 "2003-02-23T20:49:22Z")
Zundel has no expectation of receiving any sort of refugee or asylum status in Canada. I’m not even sure who he’s claiming to be persecuted by - he’s fleeing the US for kicking him out for overstaying a visa, isn’t he? Any claims of unjust prison terms in Germany would be rather amusing, since his rants would also be offenses under the Canadian Criminal Code, and he has a long history of court battles in Canada. His application for refugee status is strictly a stunt to publicize his heinous views. Sorry, bub. If you want to incite hatred without legal hassles, you’ll have to find a way to get into the US. It’s the one of the few countries around that considers freedom of speech to be more important than freedom from incited hatred.\* \*This is in no way meant to imply that the American position is wrong, merely that it is in the minority. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/28 "2003-02-23T21:00:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by red\_dragon60 \* > The Ryan, I could by the same right argue that I have the human right to kill someone and that anti-murder laws infringe on my right to do that. But I digress. The same right? The right to say what one wants and the right to kill someone are “the same right”? I don’t think that it’s at all unreasonable to insist that freedom of speech is a basic human right, and murder is not. candida > [@](#): > > You know, from time to time, I really do feel as if these sorts of arguments beg “Who died that they made you God?” questions. You clearly don’t know what the phrase “beg the question” means. > [@](#): > > The Germans are allowed their priorities which are allowed to be different from American priorities. And the Americans are allowed their priorities which are allowed to be different from German priorities. And one of those priorities is criticizing regimes that deny their subjects basic human rights. Who died and made you God, to tell us we don’t have the right to criticize the Germans? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/29 "2003-02-23T21:22:59Z")
**MC Master of Cermonies** _Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased)_ Mr Davies can take comfort that it was a civil case(brought by Irving) not a criminal case. Also, I think any law broken would have to do with being a deceiptful hate-monger rather than a “bad historian” (at least in Canada & Germany). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/30 "2003-02-23T21:24:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies \* > \*\* > Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased) \*\* What a strange thing to say. It was DAVID IRVING who was suing someone for criticizing him. It was IRVING who was trying to use the apparatus of the state to censor someone else. Nobody was going after David Irving. I get the sense Mr. Davies was not paying very close attention to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/31 "2003-02-23T22:11:32Z")
I love defending a minority position, but even moreso the right to hold a minority position. The argument that “a majority says…” holds no, zero, sway with me. Dye and Ziegler demonstrated many years ago that fundamental freedoms are always unpopular with the majority of people. Similar to the work of Stanley Milgram, it only reinforces why I’ll proudly stand among the minority that is hesitant to swing the authority stick. If you really think that there is more danger to society from some poseur neofascist babble, than a government free to define the term “hate speech,” and punish hate speech with imprisonment, I would love to hear the rationale. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/32 "2003-02-23T23:28:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*I love defending a minority position, but even moreso the right to hold a minority position. The argument that “a majority says…” holds no, zero, sway with me. Dye and Ziegler demonstrated many years ago that fundamental freedoms are always unpopular with the majority of people. Similar to the work of Stanley Milgram, it only reinforces why I’ll proudly stand among the minority that is hesitant to swing the authority stick. > > If you really think that there is more danger to society from some poseur neofascist babble, than a government free to define the term “hate speech,” and punish hate speech with imprisonment, I would love to hear the rationale. \*\* Okay, how exactly did you read into my post that I endorse hate speech laws? I merely stated that they are common. Germany isn’t the only European country with them, though theirs are the strictest, I believe. Nor was I attempting to imply that the majority is in the right here, and most certainly not justified merely by being in the majority. As a matter of fact, I am extremely ambivalent with regards to these laws. I am as wary as anyone about the dangers of using the coercive power of the state to dictate the limits of acceptable public discourse. However, freedom of speech isn’t unrestricted, even in the US, and no, I’m not talking about shouting ‘Fire!’ Unless I’m badly mistaken, there are statutes in the US against uttering threats and inciting riots as well. The difference between speaking to an unruly mob using language likely to result in said mob engaging in destructive behaviour, and speaking to a broader audience using language designed to incite hatred against a group of people, and thus increase the likeliness of violent acts against that group, is a difference of degree, and not of kind. Action and speech are causally related, and ignoring the impact of the latter on the former is foolishness. Governments differ over where to draw a line between freedom to express opinions and restrictions against speaking in ways which predictably lead to violence, and this is not surprising, as it is not an easy question. You may think the answer is obvious. I do not think it is. I am extremely uncomfortable with restricting freedom of expression. But I am also extremely uncomfortable knowing that, for example, the anti-gay filth spewed by Fred Phelps results in a higher rate of violence against gays. And while the small-minded people who listen to Fred are primarily to blame for that violence, it is simple fact that Fred is far from blameless himself, yet he cannot be held accountable. I don’t like either option here. I tend to think we should err on the side of allowing expression of opinion, but I don’t think we can completely ignore the consequences of certain sorts of speech either. Your concern about the danger in governments being able to define hate speech is at least somewhat misplaced. Governments are _not_ free to define hate speech in just any old way. The laws they pass are subject to judicial review, and must be justified in light of relevant constitutions or common law principles, else they will be struck down. If a government has managed to stuff a supreme court with syncophants who will let anything go in this regards, then you’ve got far more to worry about than restrictions on speech. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* And the Americans are allowed their priorities which are allowed to be different from German priorities. And one of those priorities is criticizing regimes that deny their subjects basic human rights._\* You might want to remember that the next time someone from outside of the US comments on American policies on the death penalty, gay marriage, and the like. Just because one person is convinced something is a basic human right doesn’t mean that others are bound to agree that it is. (I am not trying to ascribe to you any particular views on those topics. I don’t know what your views are. I am just pointing out that what constitutes a basic human right is by no means uncontroversial, and that on the view of many people the US denies its own citizens several basic rights that Germany respects.) ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/33 "2003-02-23T23:34:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*What a strange thing to say. It was DAVID IRVING who was suing someone for criticizing him. It was IRVING who was trying to use the apparatus of the state to censor someone else. Nobody was going after David Irving. > > I get the sense Mr. Davies was not paying very close attention to the facts. \*\* Actually it was relating not just to the Irving case (it was probably a poor paraphrase anyway), though he was also saying that David Irving did not appear to be antisemtic, just a bad historian. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/34 "2003-02-24T00:14:54Z")
Well, David Irving IS anti-semetic. It’s not a matter of rational question, really; the guy has been whining and bitching about Jews for years, often at the paid behest of anti-semetic organizations. He speaks for and supports Nazi groups. He may ALSO be a bad historian, but he’s definitely anti-semetic. So Davies can’t be arguing THAT point, unless he hasn’t been paying much attention to David Irving. And as to that, I still don’t get Davies’s point. Lipstadt’s writing said, in essense, that Irving was both a bad historian and a liar, both claims having substantial objective evidence to support them. What’s wrong with another historian pointing that out. But IRVING wanted it to be a crime (a civil crime, anyway) for someone to write what a shitty historian he is. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/35 "2003-02-24T00:51:10Z")
I’ll agree that human rights are contoversial. Moreover, I agree that speech can constitute a crime, or especially, [a tort](http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/). I gave some examples above. There are terroristic threats laws as well, just to throw out another. What concerns me is a whole new category of _criminal_ law punishing speech for it’s content. I think sometimes we can get a little sidetracked trying to conflate gay marriage - which I’m for, share the joy - with something really basic like freedom of expression. The death penalty I’ve been trending away from since I did a research paper on the death penalty as implemented throughout the world my third year of law school. I don’t see why my defense of freedom of expression relates to these positions substantially. Moreover, I never consider anyone bound to agree with me. In fact, that was just my point. I’ve almost exhausted the amount of energy I will expend for a knob like Zundel, especially if it is eventually it is going to turn out that there are some crucial missing facts. Does anyone know the maximum sentence he faces if convicted? Also, what about the specific allegations? Is it all predicated on denial of the holocaust or are there more traditional criminal allegations? I hate researching these topics. Check the site before you bite. I found this, I think it is [reasonable](http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/botsford/). > [@](#): > > Arguing that someone ought to be able to tell lies is different from defending the lies and the liars. I could not find anything with answers to the questions I posed above. I chose not to go to Mr. Zundel’s site, presuming that that would be rightly viewed as a biased source. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/36 "2003-02-24T01:00:37Z")
its content… damn these foul fingers. Really, it’s my first language. I may as well address the stuff about our supreme court sycophants. Actually, the SCOTUS has supported freedom of speech and expression more mightily than anyone could have expected a conservative court to do. Some of the votes have been close, but some have not. Do we need a separate topic on why, or not, freedom of speech is fundamental to a free society? ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/37 "2003-02-24T01:05:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*Well, David Irving IS anti-semetic. It’s not a matter of rational question, really; the guy has been whining and bitching about Jews for years, often at the paid behest of anti-semetic organizations. He speaks for and supports Nazi groups. He may ALSO be a bad historian, but he’s definitely anti-semetic. > > So Davies can’t be arguing THAT point, unless he hasn’t been paying much attention to David Irving. > > And as to that, I still don’t get Davies’s point. Lipstadt’s writing said, in essense, that Irving was both a bad historian and a liar, both claims having substantial objective evidence to support them. What’s wrong with another historian pointing that out. But IRVING wanted it to be a crime (a civil crime, anyway) for someone to write what a shitty historian he is. \*\* I don’t claim to know much about David Irving and (with a quick bit of googling)their certainly does seem to be some evidence outside of his writings on history, but I think you are mixing him up with David _Duke_, who can only descibed as an ‘arch-antisemite’. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/38 "2003-02-24T01:07:25Z")
its content… damn these foul fingers. Really, it’s my first language. I may as well address the stuff about our supreme court sycophants. Actually, the SCOTUS has supported freedom of speech and expression more mightily than anyone could have expected a conservative court to do. The flag burning case comes to mind. Also, I don’t see how a neofascist nutball with few followers is a real threat to nation-states. Certainly not a threat to make one dabble in content-based criminal censorship statutes. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/39 "2003-02-24T01:09:42Z")
Sorry, I meant to say “their certainly does seem to be some evidence that he is antisemtic outside of his writings on history” ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/40 "2003-02-24T01:18:37Z")
I guess it did go through the first time. It came back so quickly with an error message. Well, if anyone wants to respond to the first of my double posts, before the late revisions, I guess you can. It is the hijack on freedom of speech. I thought I edited it out, trying to restrain myself from always going far afield. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794.md?page=3)