🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu
("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>P. S.  Although I detest Irving and his views, I nevertheless
>>support his right to speak.  But the Hotel Bayrischer Hof and
>>European Sound Import are not compelled to give him a forum,
>>and I have every right to express my displeasure at their choices.
>>So do you.
>
>Sure, express your displeasure, but leave him alone.  Parade
>outside his talk, if you want.  Admit at least that some people
>have a legitimate curiosity toward what this person has to say.

I suspect his brand of historical revisionism (the standard euphemism for
denial of the Holocaust) isn't all that different from what is currently out
there already.  In fact, there was (and no doubt it still continues) an
organization based in California called the Institute of Historical Review
(IHR) which publishes a journal dedicated mainly to historical revisionism.

For a study on the right wing in Canada, one may find the work "Is God a
Racist?" (Barrett, U of T Press, 1987) to be of interest.

>abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>>I completely agree that he has all right speak, but does he has right
>>to spread lies? Somehow I can't understand this.
>
>Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
>groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
>views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Ah, but that's political naivety.  The point of speaking in public is not
merely to promote one's own views, but to organize sympathizers as well.
Though it may be possible to study a topic in isolation in academia, all too
often in the political realm issues are intertwined.  If organization and
networking is indeed a goal, then counter-organization is a legitimate
response.  I would not advocate censorship, however, as that would merely
sweep issues under the rug.