IS THIS FREE SPEECH? SUBSTITUTE the word Muslims with Blacks, Irish, Jews or Hindus and then see if this sign is really funny:
An alleged Holocaust denier has been arrested by police after flying into Heathrow Airport in London.
The Met Police’s extradition unit detained Australian Frederick Toben under an EU warrant issued in Germany.
He is accused of publishing material on the internet between 2000 and 2004 that “denies, approves of or plays down the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis”.
Mr Toben, 64, later appeared before City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and was remanded in custody.
A further hearing will take place on Friday.
He told the court he did not consent to extradition and would fight attempts to send him to Germany.
Mr Toben, who had been in transit from the US to Dubai at the time of his arrest, represented himself at the hearing.
He said his apprehension had been an abuse of process.
The arrest warrant alleges that Mr Toben committed the offence in Australia, Germany and other countries, and that the material is also “of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature”.
It was issued by a court in Mannheim, Germany, where Mr Toben was given a 10-month jail sentence in 1999 after publishing a newsletter which denied the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7646556.stm)
What happened to free speech? The Australian ‘Fredrick Toeben’, was previously given a 10 month jail sentence in Germany for ‘incitement and insulting the memory of the dead’. What about the controversial cartoon artist ‘Kurt Westergaard’ who created the cartoons of Mohammed and depicting him as blood thirsty terrorist or the editor of the Jyllands Posten ‘Roger Köppel’, who actually authorised the publication of those cartoons or even the Dutch politician ‘Geert Wilders’ who made the film ‘fitna’, calling all Muslims who believe in Islam as terrorist.
All of the above can be charged with ‘incitement and insulting the memory of the dead’.
It seems free speech is about what the West feels passionate or guilty about and not about what the rest feel passionate about.
As Henry Ford proclaimed in his Autobiography ‘You can have any colour you want, as long as its black’
Lord Islington argued that the provisions concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home were inconsistent with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had laid the foundations of the mandatory system. Lord Islington continued that ‘the mandate imposes on Great Britain the reasonability of trusteeship for a Zionist political predominance where 90 per cent of the population are non-Zionist and non-Jewish … In fact, very many orthodox Jews, not only in Palestine but all over the world, view with the deepest misapprehension, not to say dislike, this principle of a Zionist Home in Palestine … The scheme of a Zionist Home sought to make Zionist political predominance effective in Palestine by importing into the country extraneous and alien Jews from other parts of the world … This scheme of importing an alien race into the midst of a native local race is flying in the very face of the whole of the tendencies of the age. It is an unnatural experiment … It is literally inviting subsequent catastrophe …
Answering this criticism, the author of the Declaration, Lord Balfour, said:
Zionism may fail…this is an adventure…Are we never to have adventures? Are we never to try new experiments?…I do not think I need dwell upon this imaginary wrong which the Jewish Home is going to inflict upon the local Arabs. (Lord Balfour 21st June 1922 – House of Lords)
Lord Sydenham replied that the Zionist experiment would fail, but the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country – Arab all round in the hinterland – may never be remedied … What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far the sore will extend.
House of Lords, 21 June 1922