-
Blaze 2022-04-08 09:01:13
The bias is too obvious, it would be better to be...
-
Lizzie 2022-04-08 09:01:13
As stable as Mount Tai, there are no shortcomings in all aspects, and the historical details are...
-
Amiya 2022-04-08 09:01:13
brush jack lowden's piece of...
-
Angel 2022-04-08 09:01:13
Does standing up to what's wrong can boast honesty and gain approval? Of course not. What you say or do is to discriminate and insult others, which is not a right granted to you by free...
-
Aryanna 2022-04-06 09:01:07
"O, i had some damn good lawyers." From a legal point of view, the BBC is really the best courtroom production company in the world. The team of defense lawyers who denied the case are really professional idols. They are neither humble nor arrogant nor impetuous. Even if they drink alcohol, they can calm down. The sollicitor played by Mo Niang and her grandfather barrister are the dream team. Mike is an Easter...
-
Henderson 2022-04-06 09:01:07
It's relatively flat, everyone's role is more evenly distributed, and Sister Rachel doesn't have much sense of presence as the...
-
Turner 2022-04-06 09:01:07
I know that as a Holocaust movie, it must not be enough: no cries, no denunciations, no tearful accusations. But as a legal film, its coolness and rationality shine through from start to...
-
Isabel 2022-04-06 09:01:07
Fully demonstrates the logic of what is...
-
Diego 2022-04-06 09:01:07
Some are beyond expectations. One is that the British legal system originally "needed Deborah to provide evidence that the Holocaust actually happened", but the team of lawyers changed their strategy to prove that "Owen was an anti-Semitic". I love that the lawyer team separates "whether there was a Holocaust" from the success of this defense. The second point is the justice's last paragraph on "freedom of speech": if a person really believes what he thinks and expresses it, should he support...
-
Coleman 2022-04-06 09:01:07
Some are beyond expectations. One is that the British legal system originally "needed Deborah to provide evidence that the Holocaust actually happened", but the team of lawyers changed their strategy to prove that "Owen was an anti-Semitic". I love that the lawyer team separates "whether there was a Holocaust" from the success of this defense. The second point is the justice's last paragraph on "freedom of speech": if a person really believes what he thinks and expresses it, should he support...
Denial Comments
-
Richard Rampton: They're a strange thing consciences. Trouble is, what feels best isn't necessarily what works best.
-
David Irving: [first lines; in a video speaking to a sympathetic audience] I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. I say to you quite tastelessly that more women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.
[audience laughing and applauding]
Deborah Lipstadt: Holocaust denial rests on four basic assertions. Number 1: That there was never any systematic or organized attempt by the Nazis to kill all of Europe's Jews. Number 2: That the numbers are far fewer than five or six million. Number 3: That there were no gas chambers or specially built extermination facilities. Number 4: That the Holocaust is therefore a myth invented by Jews to get themselves financial compensation and to further the fortunes of the State of Israel. War, the deniers say, is a bloody business. There's nothing special about the Jews, they're not unique in their suffering. They're just everyday casualties of war. What's the fuss?
Deborah Lipstadt: Okay, and here's another question, how do we know the Holocaust happened? Seriously. I'm asking. How do we prove it? Photographic evidence? Not one person in this room or outside it has ever seen a photograph of a Jew inside a gas chamber. You know why? Because the Germans made sure that none were ever taken. So how do we know? How do we *know* that so many were murdered? So what's the proof? Where's the proof? How strong is it?
