David Irving

[Harry Angstrom]

I have only described the issue of Hubbard himself who was the founder of Scientology. I haven't gone into Scientology in this country because it has not gone down the road that it did in America under Hubbard's direct personal influence even if the basis of its belief, ideology and methods should be open to critical analysis. Scientology should certainly be treated no differently to other religions and movements in that regard of which there was a proliferation in the 1960s in this country, yet only Hubbard was singled out as an undesirable presence. So there was clearly no general intent to prevent anyone from evangelising their religion.

We have set precedent in this country whether we like that or not, so I see no reason to criticise other nations for doing so, especially over an issue such as the holocaust.

What has that got to do with the principle?

This Hubbard chap was barred in 1968, a couple of years earlier being a practising homosexual was illegal. Are you saying we shouldn't criticise African nations for outlawing the gays?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

What has that got to do with the principle?

This Hubbard chap was barred in 1968, a couple of years earlier being a practising homosexual was illegal. Are you saying we shouldn't criticise African nations for outlawing the gays?

Are the reasons to outlaw gays valid or not? I doubt that they are valid.

Are the reasons to ban holocaust denial valid or not? I doubt that they are not valid.

Were the reasons to bad Hubbard valid or not? I doubt that they were not valid.

As has already been shown, there is no absolute freedom of speech in any country.

There are always exceptions decided by that country.

You seem to think that there is some absolute and universal principle of free speech but that is only an ideal.

We can continue to make such generalisations but the exceptions are individual.

So irrelevant comparisons prove nothing.

The reason I mentioned Hubbard was to show they we make such decisions and not an example of that ideal ourselves.

PS Edit: The bottom line for me...General principles of absolute and universal free speech do not make the banning of holocaust denial in some countries invalid.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Are the reasons to outlaw gays valid or not? I doubt that they are valid. Agree

Are the reasons to ban holocaust denial valid or not? I doubt that they are not valid. Disagree

Were the reasons to bad Hubbard valid or not? I doubt that they were not valid. Disagree

As has already been shown, there is no absolute freedom of speech in any country. I agree

There are always exceptions decided by that country. Agree

You seem to think that there is some absolute and universal principle of free speech but that is only an ideal. It is the ideal, I am talking about. Once compromise starts then people can justify anything

We can continue to make such generalisations but the exceptions are individual. No idea

So irrelevant comparisons prove nothing. They are very relevant as they highlight the inconsistencies in the argument

I like a good debate.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

"Once compromise starts then people can justify anything"

Erm, no they can't. This is just trite. Has anybody suggested the laws against inciting hatred or violence, or libel and slander should be scrapped because you could then justify anything? Because they are also surely a compromise between the ideal of universal free speech and what is considered reasonable in a civilised society.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

I like a good debate.

Aye Harry and to be honest I've learned a bit myself during this one. It's certainly made me think.

I would agree that holocaust denial is a contentious issue and open to debate. There are certainly pros and cons of equal value. Also, it is a blanket ban rather than the banning of individuals. Irving was free to enter Austria and be imprisoned. The case against him as an individual is probably more valid than a blanket ban on the subject. The case against gays is clearly prejudiced. That leaves our intrepid, sea faring explorer. At the beginning I said I didn't really know the specifics of why he was banned but I am not sure whether I have discovered a child prodigy (both physical and intellectual), who was one of the first to study nuclear physics, a pioneering aviator that barnstormed the Midwest, a marine expert on ships and sailing, an explorer, an anthropologist, a hydrographic surveyor, a nautical cartographer, a donator of artefacts to universities and museums, a war hero and the creator of a system that was so effective that it could prevent what it classed as the psychosomatic illness of leukaemia. That's not mentioning his involvement in the occult in America with an organisation associated with Alistair Crowley and his single handed defeat of Black Magic in America that was characterised by his running off with the money and leaving those behind in debt and financial ruin. Maybe he was just misunderstood. Or was he a liar, charlatan and mentally unstable as described by his own son.