- Status
J
Javl
Guest
This is surprising news. I didn’t think a secular court could do that to a religious, unless Williamson is a citizen of either Germany or one of the EU countries.
Also, I thought that Bishop Williamson only denied that less than 6 million Jews died in German concentration camps.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
D
Darryl1958
Guest
It is tragic what such decisions do to the ability to discuss issues openly.
People need to be given the freedom to be wrong or misinformed. Otherwise we all end up with an official version of the truth.
People need to be given the freedom to be wrong or misinformed. Otherwise we all end up with an official version of the truth.
L
Layman
Guest
All hail the New Freedom! You can say and think what you like as long as it’s ‘acceptable’.
When will someone publicly ask: “To who?”
When will someone publicly ask: “To who?”
J
JReducation
Guest
While I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church that Bishop Williamson has to put distance between him and these beliefs, I also believe that this was an unjust ruling. He did not make the statements in Germany. I don’t understand why he’s being punished for breaking a German law. Unless there is more to this, it’s an abuse of the law. How cna you punish someone for breaking a law that is non existing where the action took place? That’s ridiculous.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Califman831
Guest
He seemed to be question the numbers and the method not that there was a holocaust. Here is the clip:This is surprising news. I didn’t think a secular court could do that to a religious, unless Williamson is a citizen of either Germany or one of the EU countries.
Also, I thought that Bishop Williamson only denied that less than 6 million Jews died in German concentration camps.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
J
JReducation
Guest
There is not seeming about it. He actually denies that it happened and that there were gas chambers. He also knew that his statements are illegal in Germany. He asked the reporter if the interview was a setup to get him arrested in Germany. Of course, he did get slammed by the Holy Father who demanded that he withdraw from this position.
But what I don’t understand is how he can be convicted of a crime in Germany, when he was not in Germany when he made the statement. The usual and customary process is that you are arrested or fined in the nation where you break the law. I guess I would have to read the wording of the law. If it says that the German government can penalize anyone who breaks German law, even outside of Germany, then it begs the question, how long is the arm of German law?
There has to be more to this. My guess is going to be that either he was setup by the producers of the program and it was aired in Germany, which would then get him into trouble with the Germans or he made some comment in Germany. Anything else is abuse of power. That’s not fair. Since when is it illegal to say something dumb?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
According to the original source of the article, the interview was made in Regensburg Germany.There is not seeming about it. He actually denies that it happened and that there were gas chambers. He also knew that his statements are illegal in Germany. He asked the reporter if the interview was a setup to get him arrested in Germany. Of course, he did get slammed by the Holy Father who demanded that he withdraw from this position.
But what I don’t understand is how he can be convicted of a crime in Germany, when he was not in Germany when he made the statement. The usual and customary process is that you are arrested or fined in the nation where you break the law. I guess I would have to read the wording of the law. If it says that the German government can penalize anyone who breaks German law, even outside of Germany, then it begs the question, how long is the arm of German law?
There has to be more to this. My guess is going to be that either he was setup by the producers of the program and it was aired in Germany, which would then get him into trouble with the Germans or he made some comment in Germany. Anything else is abuse of power. That’s not fair. Since when is it illegal to say something dumb?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/british-bishop-holocaust-fine
Its in the 4th paragraph where it says:
Since that seems pretty apparent, I’d say Bishop Williamson got what he deserved!
C
chosen_people
Guest
Well in my opinion there was no fine and if there was a fine then it was much less then most people believe:shrug:
C
credoinunum
Guest
Bishop Williamson wants to go back to Germany, he will be subject to the fine against him in that country. If he chooses to appeal, he can do so.
Personally, if the German’s have a law that says hate crime denial is against the law in Germany, and that is consistant with the governing law in their country, then fair play to them. It doesn’t mean they will stop the activity, but they can regulate it as they like, and fine whomever they please.
Personally, if the German’s have a law that says hate crime denial is against the law in Germany, and that is consistant with the governing law in their country, then fair play to them. It doesn’t mean they will stop the activity, but they can regulate it as they like, and fine whomever they please.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is the law of that country and shoule be respected, despite how invasive the law is. One can take the fascists of of Germany but you can’t take fascism out of Germans.
J
JimG
Guest
Bishop Williamson’s remarks about the holocaust during this interview strike me as not only reprehensible revisionism, but as remarkably violating the virtue of prudence. He is not an expert on the matter and seems to believe what he has read elsewhere, so he should simply have avoided talking at such length about an issue where his knowledge is limited.
At the same time, I think it does no good for Germany to have a law forbidding anyone to state an opinion on any matter, no matter how reprehensible the views may be. Forbidding free speech is counterproductive.
At the same time, I think it does no good for Germany to have a law forbidding anyone to state an opinion on any matter, no matter how reprehensible the views may be. Forbidding free speech is counterproductive.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not a historian, so please be nice ot me if I’m in error. I believe that the German law was created to protect the investigative procedure of the new government. In other words, it was created to stop the cover-up of the Nazis who disappeared into the masses. It was a way minimizing “plausible deniability”. I don’t think that the law has much use today. But I’m not a German and I don’t know.
That being said, I do believe that the arm of the law is too long. I really thought that the interview was in one of the Scandanavian counries, not in Germany. I’m a little confused there.
Be that as it may, the good bishop spoke very foolishly. First, this is not the opinion held by many respectable historians. Second, this is not the opinion held by his boss, the Pope. Third, if you are in negotiations to re-enter the Church with a German Pope and you know how the Germans feel about his issue, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SUT.
I can’t believe that the good bishop did not see this trouble coming. I say good, because I do believe that he is a good man, even though he and I would disagree on many things. He may die long after me and sail right past me into heaven.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, it would have been great advice for the bishop to “keep his mouth shut” about the matter!
S
Soutane
Guest
"Hate Crime"laws are simply a means of stifling free thought and speech.They are a great weapon of totaliarian Secularism."Shut Up!WE"LL tell you what the truth is!“It’s Orwellian and tramples upon one of our FUNDAMENTAL freedoms-free speech which is in fact FREE THOUGHT.Just look to your North with the various Human “Rights” Tribunals(answerable to NONE but themselves).THANK God we have had three recent victories against these kangaroo courts and there is a move to repeal much of their power if not their existance.It’s a case of a shield becoming a sword to punish"wrong thinkers” and not protect the oppressed.
Be VERY careful that such things are not instituted in the U.S.Isn’t there some proposal(endorsed by the U.S. Bishop’s conference,no less
)to silence or restrict the free speech of conservative media?Thin edge of the wedge,my American cousins.
Be VERY careful that such things are not instituted in the U.S.Isn’t there some proposal(endorsed by the U.S. Bishop’s conference,no less
)to silence or restrict the free speech of conservative media?Thin edge of the wedge,my American cousins.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually not. You may have missied it. But it’s in the Catholic New forum. There is an organization to which the Catholic Church belongs. I can’t recall its name. They usually promote some pretty good things. But recently they made a statement against conservative talk show hosts. After this plan was discussed, the Catholic bishops had written them and strongly recommended against this action. But the organization proceeded anyway. Of course, the Catholic Conference appears on their membership list. But what was not said was that their statement did not reflect the membership, because the Catholic bishops had bowed out of that statement."Hate Crime"laws are simply a means of stifling free thought and speech.They are a great weapon of totaliarian Secularism."Shut Up!WE"LL tell you what the truth is!“It’s Orwellian and tramples upon one of our FUNDAMENTAL freedoms-free speech which is in fact FREE THOUGHT.Just look to your North with the various Human “Rights” Tribunals(answerable to NONE but themselves).THANK God we have had three recent victories against these kangaroo courts and there is a move to repeal much of their power if not their existance.It’s a case of a shield becoming a sword to punish"wrong thinkers” and not protect the oppressed.
Be VERY careful that such things are not instituted in the U.S.**Isn’t there some proposal(endorsed by the U.S. Bishop’s conference,no less
Archbishop Charles Chaput was asked to set the record strait on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference.
But these things are going to happen when you partner with any group. You have to stay on top of what your partners are saying and make sure that they represent you or when they choose to speak for the majority, it’s important that they also state that there are a minority of members who disagree and state who they are. This is part of transparency. Transparency can often be an area where many organizations fall short. We don’t want to become isolationaists and say that we do not want to work with others. But we have to make sure that if we disagree with the group, that this is also communicated to the public.
On the other hand, we have to be careful that freedom of speech does not convert into freedom to offend, lie, cheat, distort the truth, attack the innocent. Look at the case with the Simson cartoon and the Eucharist. That was one of the worse examples of free speech I have seen in recent time.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I found your first paragraph interesting and informative. I didn’t know all that history. But I did say that I am not a historian. I’m a theologian.
Your last sentence needs a little work. I would say that one can say that a certain statement is offensive because it’s bigotry or antisemitic. But charity requires that we never judge a person, only his actions or words.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Your last sentence needs a little work. I would say that one can say that a certain statement is offensive because it’s bigotry or antisemitic. But charity requires that we never judge a person, only his actions or words.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Y
Yellow_Belle
Guest
Yes it does - IMO (name removed by moderator) was being mild
He could have expanded it to say say that Williamson is a misogynistic, anti-semite bigot with rather strong views on that well-known source of evil and vice, The Sound of Music. 
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
A prime example of the absurd misapplication of that law. Bishop Williamson is right to question the use of gas chambers and the total death toll of Jews as the historical evidence shows that the method and figures we’re forced to accept today are likely inaccurate. For example, the estimation of 6 million Jews murdered is most definitely wrong because it is the product of simply estimating the number of Jews in Nazi controlled territory before and after the war and erroneously concluding that the difference = the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis. It completely omits the large numbers of Jews who fled Nazi controlled territory and never returned. Questioning the scope of an event is in no way equivalent to denying it.
J
JReducation
Guest
Bold is mine.
Actually, Bishop Williamson did say that he believes that there were no gas chambers. He did deny something that everyone else agrees is real. Can and should the state penalize him for saying this in another country? I have a problem with that.
We want the law to protect truth. But we don’t want laws that have such long arms that they invade the sovereignty of other nations. From what I understood this interview did not take place in Germany or am I mistaken?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status