Holocaust Remembrance Day

well, I was just wanting know.

My grandmother on my mother's side was with the partisans, and my grandparents on my fathers side fled to Israel during the war - my grandfather cross Germany on foot as a little boy with his father and the managed to stay hidden buy moving around up to the Vg day.

The truth is that as an Israeli Jew, it's very reassuring to know that there are good people that take the time to remember this horrible event, especially in contrast to those who keep claiming the holocaust never happened and was actually invented by Jews.

Thanks guys.
 
I thought it was an appropriate image of Hitler, with the Jews as the enemy. Especially since it was drawn by who I understand was one of the great heroes of the war.
 
Originally posted by HammerHead
well, I was just wanting know.

My grandmother on my mother's side was with the partisans, and my grandparents on my fathers side fled to Israel during the war - my grandfather cross Germany on foot as a little boy with his father and the managed to stay hidden buy moving around up to the Vg day.

The truth is that as an Israeli Jew, it's very reassuring to know that there are good people that take the time to remember this horrible event, especially in contrast to those who keep claiming the holocaust never happened and was actually invented by Jews.

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't get around to you before, but full on. Damn straight. In fact, I think it's name and shame time. There's someone by the name of Olga Scully who lives in Launceston, Tasmania who is absolutely aggressive in her attacks against the Jews in regard to how the holocaust did not happen. You would find her out at Esk Market every Sunday with her propoganda on how the holocaust was a hoax, the Port Arthur massecre and September 11 terrorist attacks were government plots, the medical establishment being responsible for all manner of illnesses and other such fables. She has broken the law a number of times, often for the distribution and mailing of letters with such claims, and I was actually in court for one of her cases for a court report I wrote up for Law. I have a copy of it here, I'll put it below.

Court Report

Supreme Court
Court Room Two
2nd May 2002 at 10:15 AM

This was an important court case, as it had to do with the issue of racial discrimination. The Defence claims that the Jewish Holocaust that took place in the Second World War at the hands of the Nazis did not happen. The atmosphere in the courtroom was relaxed right up until the judge called the court to session. We rose, bowed, and sat down as is customary in court, and then the case got underway.

The judge asked a question to The Defence that was unintelligible, but The Defence answered the question by claiming that she was misled. She claimed that there was evidence that she had at previous court cases that she was not allowed to show. The judge said that she was given sufficient time to present any evidence she had. The Defence disputed this, saying how there was evidence that she was not allowed to show. The judge said that he had been doing his best to listen to her case. The Defence further debated that she was being unfairly treated in regard to her presentation of evidence. The judge said that audio and video evidence The Defence had presented to the court in a previous hearing and the evidence she claimed she was cut short in presenting was inadmissible as evidence under the criminal discrimination act. The Defence did not agree with this decision at all, and claimed that the court not allowing her to show her evidence was discrimination. The judge said that the audio and video recordings of the past court cases could be reviewed to find evidence that this was the case, but The Defence refused. Why she refused is only left to speculation. She might not have wished for the court case to drag on for longer that it was necessary, or she might have been trying to manipulate the court
system in her favour by claiming that she was unfairly treated in the court barring her from presenting evidence, only to be proven wrong when concrete evidence in the form of video that showed that the only evidence that was not allowed was the evidence that was considered inadmissible was supplied.

Believing that that issue had been dealt with, the judge brought up the issue of pamphlets that The Defence had printed out and distributed, and the judge was quick to point out that these pamphlets were unacceptable. It came as a surprise that after putting up such a fight on her presentation of evidence, The Defence did not dispute the case, and instead simply resigned to silence as the judge explain why and how the distribution of these pamphlets and the contents of the pamphlets themselves was unacceptable. He did not go into detail as to what the contents of the pamphlets were.
The Defence then requested that the videos that were considered inadmissible to be presented. The judge said no, rightfully saying that there has to be some common sense to the proceedings. This was rightfully pointed out in my view as The Defence had been told on a number of occasions that the evidence she wished to submit was inadmissible, but she was still insistent on showing it. I did not know what The Defence hoped to achieve by showing this evidence, as the court would disregard it. The only answer I can come up with is that The Defence hoped that she could convert people who saw this evidence.

The Defence then needed to reread some of the court protocols, as she clearly did not know what she was doing. Upon reading the court reports and court protocol, The Defence did not accept some of the court rulings and ways the court was run. The Defence went further to say that these rulings were unfair as it related to her submitting of evidence. The judge said that he would look into that and the matter will go into possible review.

The judge then came back to the topic of the pamphlets, saying how he will review them with a court official. The Defence agreed, provided that she was allowed to talk about them as well, and as long as the pamphlets were not unfairly portrayed.

The judge then brought up the issue of books that were submitted as evidence in the court case. The Defence said how the books were brought in as evidence to show how they have influenced her, and
says they are the reason that she has the beliefs she has and why she attempts to place her beliefs on other people. To save other people from hunting down the books, the material was never mentioned. The Defence was quick to point out that the books were published long before the pamphlets were printed out. The judge said that it was a little convenient of The Defence to have the books handed in at the last minute. No further comment was made on the issue.

The judge then brought up an unknown dispute that occurred in Sydney. As the incident occurred in Sydney the court case would have to be held there. A previous request by The Defence to have airfares and accommodation paid for was denied by the court. The judge offered The Defence the use of the video conferencing rooms for the court case if she was unable to travel to Sydney. The Defence refused this, saying that she would not appear via video and insisted that the court pay for all of her expenses that airfares and accommodation would cost her. Any
dreams The Defence might have had of first class private planes and room service at the Hilton were shattered, as the judge was adamant that The Defence either pay for her own way to Sydney, or use the video conferencing, assuring her that they would be first rate and that she would be fairly represented. The judge then called the court to recess so he could see if the video conferencing was available on the date of the Sydney court case, at about 11:30 AM.
 
Originally posted by HammerHead

The truth is that as an Israeli Jew, it's very reassuring to know that there are good people that take the time to remember this horrible event, especially in contrast to those who keep claiming the holocaust never happened and was actually invented by Jews.
Click to expand...

How do those people explain thier thories to the US and Russian Soldiers who found most of the Camps
 
People are jerks -- it's a universal constant. Your best bet is just to not take them seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top