This thread has gone completely off topic...

In response to the actual article, there is no evidence that Canadian authorities are banning Shoebat from entering Canada for anything other than his terrorist past. Indeed, Maher Arar is still on the terrorist watchlist of the United States, despite the sensationalism surrounding the wrongdoings committed by Canadian, American, and Syrian authorities against him. Perhaps Canadian immigration authorities were trying to prove that they are intolerant of terrorists entering Canada (something Americans accuse Canada of incessantly)? Furthermore, I do not see the correlation between Dossa and Shoebat.

As far as Israeli-Palestinian tensions are concerned, I believe that both groups are equally responsible for them, and am against any particular favouritism. This is irrespective of which group is more successful or what lands belonged to whom.

First of all like I said you can debate all you want about it. Every western national including Canada have historical archives about the events of Holocaust. Like I said if you want to research perhaps you should check your own countries archives I am sure there ain’t any approval required for that. Surely you believe your government right? I am not suggesting that you should check the records at YAD VASHEM or Holocaust museum in New York.

Now why I am not surprised to read such views from Canada after all this is the country which is giving refuge to Anti-American Anti-Semitic for years.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002944.php

@Kapitein A

1) You have a point about that "official censorship", but NOT "throughout the West".  Certainly in parts of Europe (and perhaps also in Canada), but not in the USA, Australia, and some other parts of Europe.

2) "Popular culture" does have a tendency to over-emphasize all sorts of things and to ignore (kopindegronderij) some very important things.  No doubt in some places it may have over-emphasized the "jewish facet" in the past, and under-emphasized other facets.  I doubt that that is the case today. Popular culture changes, surely and perceptably.   In any case, I do not think that any of these considerations are relevant to the issue of the nature of the Tehran conference.  The latter deserves no respect, and is organized by bigots and 'nondemocrats'.

3) The point of the reference to Belgium is that you do not seem to have a fair and realistic appreciation of the impact of state-organised antisemitism on jewish people.  Perhaps, if Belgians were being directly targeted in numerous places around the world, you might see that differently.  Although, the indifference in Belgium to the historical record of the constant Arab attempts to destroy Israel over the past century, is not a promising sign on that score.  The irony is that Israel, a former 'ally' of Iran, is today more threathened by the Persians than the Arabs.  That is because Iran today is vying for leadership of radical Islam in the world.   Over time the Arabs may well become Israel's friend before antisemitic Belgians will give it a 'fair shake'.

4) I agree with the opinion expressed in your last paragraph.  But I also think that 'moral principles' are more important than sentiments towards enemies and friends.

I'm afraid that when it comes to the Holocaust, there is a great deal of official and unofficial censorship throughout the West. It comes in the form of false charges of anti-Semitism, Fascism, and racism, and laws prohibiting even academic debate over the nature and extent of the Jewish Holocaust. Furthermore, popular culture continues to over-emphasize the Jewish facet of the Holocaust, when in fact a great deal of groups suffered tremendous losses at the hands of the Third Reich, sometimes greater in relative (e.g. Gypsies) and absolute (e.g. Soviets) terms than the Jews. Ultimately, the only feature that makes the Jewish Holocaust stand apart from the others is the use of gas chambers. Of course, if it were proved that most of the Jewish fatalities were due to warfare, firing squad, starvation, overwork, and disease (i.e. typhus), than their suffering would be no different than that of the other targeted groups, and the Germans would be no more barbaric than their contemporaries, the Japanese and Soviets, or the Communist Chinese.

I am not concerned with what the Iranian government has to say on the Holocaust; their position is based solely on their disdain for Israel and the efforts of international Jewry, particularly those in the United States, to support it. Futhermore, I do not see what Belgium has to do with anything...

Opposition to the Islamic presence in Europe and personal dislike of Islamic beliefs does not make me an automatic friend of Israel anymore than my indifference towards Israel makes me pro-Palestinian or a Muslim sympathizer.

@ Kapitein A

As far as I know, no serious person is denying the plight of the gypsies under the Third Reich, and the handicaped, etc...., and only nutty leftists in the West will ignore the "fatality figures" of Stalin and Mao.  Although many in the western leftist mainstream do so with regard to Castro's "fatalities".  The recent 'nostalgia' about Pinochet illustrates that absurd double standard clearly.

The details of the nazi jew-hatred and holocaust have been endlessly debated and documented.  There has been no lack of "scrutiny" on that account.   So what is your point?  That 'the jews' want special victim status?  Yes, some no doubt do, and many do not.  Above all, they want to survive as free people.  If Ahmadinejad would endlessly repeat about Belgians what he says about jews, perhaps you might sing a different tune?  And do not make the mistake of thinking that he has a better opinion about secular or christian Belgians than he has about jews.   

@ Kapitein A

As far as I know, no serious person is denying the plight of the gypsies under the Third Reich, and the handicaped, etc...., and only nutty leftists in the West will ignore the "fatality figures" of Stalin and Mao.  Although many in the western leftist mainstream do so with regard to Castro's "fatalities".  The recent 'nostalgia' about Pinochet illustrates that absurd double standard clearly.

The details of the nazi jew-hatred and holocaust have been endlessly debated and documented.  There has been no lack of "scrutiny" on that account.   So what is your point?  That 'the jews' want special victim status?  Yes, some no doubt do, and many do not.  Above all, they want to survive as free people.  If Ahmadinejad would endlessly repeat about Belgians what he says about jews, perhaps you might sing a different tune?  And do not make the mistake of thinking that he has a better opinion about secular or christian Belgians than he has about jews.   

Of course only a fool would admit that something "didn't" happen in those countries occupied by Germany. However, like every historical event, its qualitative and quantitative points should be up for academic scrutiny. Nor were the Jews the only civilian victims of Hitler: the Gypsies suffered the most in relative fatalities; the Soviets suffered the most in absolute fatalities. I don't see why the fatality figures attributed to Stalin or Mao's tenure should be revised, but Hitler's deeds remain sacrosanct, and even then only with regards to one group. And yes, I do think that there is fear on the part of Jews that academic debate may lead to a lesser emphasis on Hitler's genocidal and democidal acts and make what happened to them less important. However, either every "wronged" group must make its "wrongs" historical cannon or none can, and I'd rather see a world of healthy debate rather than one in which victimization is a currency.

Holocaust is a reality. There are still thousands of people still alive who been through horrific nightmare of holocaust. My RABBI is holocaust survivor questioning that heinous despicable insanity is like spiting at these innocent victims. I recommend if ya’ll are not aware of horrors of holocaust read some books by ELIE WIESEL.    The certified lunatic’s of Iran are trying to deny historical reality. Europe should Stop these lunatics in Iran not just for humanity but because Europe owes this to the victims.

A report from MEMRI shows that the reason for the conference was said to be in part for the protection of Jews and Germany from the savage plot arranged to deny Germany its rightful power, among other things.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD139706

There are plans to establish a world holocast foundation in Germany "when the time is right".  It should not take long with immigration proceeding apace.

This insulting bitch seems to think Canada should allow terrorists to enter our country while forbidding university professors to travel outside the country to attend conferences. Typical Zionist propaganda. Why is no one allowed to even discuss this period in human history. Are Jews afraid people might discover their own complicity in the holocaust, the biggest propaganda ploy in human history? Both the US and Israel were founded by terrorists and they continue to be terrorist states to this day. Dan Begin...Calgary

@ valknot

What do you mean "implemented democratically"?  If you mean that a majority in parliament voted for them, that doesn't make it "democratically".  If 'majorities' can vote anything they want, would that give us "democracy"?  Democracy means, among other things, separation of powers.  It follows that the judiciary has to ensure that parliament does NOT act UNconstitutionally.  If the judiciary doesn't do its job anymore, then democracy breaks down.  

Today, the parliament in Iran votes all sorts of measures which violate basic individual rights.  As you know, Hitler was elected "democratically", and his parliament voted all sorts of things with large majorities, as does Castro's, etc.... Yet, they do not have "democracy".   If you ask muslims whether they want 'sharia law', most will tell you that they want it, even if it might mean the end of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc....Majorities do not make a "democracy".  Only 'democrats' can do that.  In other words, a culture in which enough people are willing to vote into parliament representatives who will respect the 'democratic' Constitution, and with genuine separation of powers (with each power - i.e. executive, legislature, and judiciary - respecting the boundaries).  

What is the meaning of elections and of 'majorities' if most people cannot get access to information because a majority puts certain subjects "beyond discussion"?   If Europe today is facing a multicultural nightmare, rest assured that it is because 10 or 15 years ago certain topics were put beyond discussion.  And, it doesn't even have to be done directly by prosecuting many people.  A few 'examples' suffice, and the message gets across, and 'self-censurship' will do the rest.

If - a big if - today one cannot organise an "open" conference on the holocaust in England, then I would say that England is a long way towards losing its 'democracy'.  And, surely, that is very bad news for the 'continent'. On the way to Eurabia, were 'majorities' rule, but are uninformed because of censureship laws and worse things. Just like in Arabia today.

The essence of democracy is not 'majority rule', but the maintenance of individual freedom (even against the wishes of majorities). That requires freedom of (political) speech!

The restrictions on gauranteed freedom of expression were implemented democratically. In England there are certain things you cannot say. The state will prosecute.
The chances of an open conference on the holocaust in England are zero. The state wouldn't allow it and neither would the enforcers. The police would follow the state line.

@ Valknot

Why should there be "legal problems" in organising a conference, any conference, in a "democratic country"?  That would seem a contradiction-in-terms.

I am aware that several European countries have passed legislation that criminalises certain opinions (always subjective).  In so doing they have violated their own constitutions which supposedly guaranteed freedom of expression or opinion (as a remnant from the previous - now apparently extinct? - European Enlightenment).  As such they are setting the stage for the establishment of an orthodoxy which will maintain itself by criminalising opposition.   The conclusion is inescapable: such countries are no longer truly "democratic", because the essence of democracy is the maintenance of freedom of opinion.  Elections are not there to impose tirannies of majorities.  In a democratic worldview, elections are there to let (temporary) majorities decide who can make rules about taxes, trafic regulations, foreign policy etc...while respecting the fundamental rights of the individual.  

The "conference" is Iran's attempt to establish it's leadership as Caliph of the region and to attempt to draw legitimacy and divide the West.  They recognize that there are divisions of opinion in the West.  They recognize, too, that where freedom to express opinion in the West is denied on this issue that it gives them two arguments.  One is the denial of the right of existence of Israel and the other is the hypocrisy of the West in disallowing expression on this issue while denouncing them for their views.  They seek legitimacy for their views based on this bootstrap argument.

While many aspects of denial remain controversial, the most controversial may be why laws against dissemination of different views is necessary.  I think it only encourages rampant feelings of exclusion that are sometimes expressed by some well-meaning and otherwise reasonable people, but fueled by the prohibition.  To allowthis sad history to be useful to these truly dangerous demogogues is the primary crime.  Taking anything they say seriously (except as a warning of their true intentions for not only Israel but the West) would be the worst crime.

For the view of an Iranian on the subject, see the following article by Amil Imani http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/12/the_holocaust_conference_sha...

@ Valknot

Indeed, attributing bad intentions is always "easy".  Your unfounded charge against the author (Adamson) only confirms that.  The more relevant and important question in any particular situation is whether such attribution is justified, or not. 

You seem to have your head burried well deep into the sand, as moral relativism seems to prevent you from making NECESSARY moral judgements.  The current Iranian President may well have a "sense of humour" (in your twisted moral universe of perverse values), but he sits at the footstep near the top (the 'Supreme Council') of an abominable political system (an intolerant theocracy).  He was NOT elected in a 'FREE' election, and he does NOT tolerate freedom of speech for his own people.  So what can be the meaning of a "conference", any conference, in such a 'controlled' environment....but a contrived form of speech?!  And, in this particular case, a 'contrivance' to falsify historical knowledge. 

I will spare you a long list of violations against the freedom of the human spirit that Ahmadinejad represents, but you have a moral obligation to consider major facts of which you are manifestly aware.  One does not have to "attribute bad intentions" loosely to know, for a fact, how bad his intentions are.  It suffices to read and listen to what he actually says, with great regularity, and beginning with his public declarations in front of the UN General Assembly (another cesspool of absurd moral relativism).   It does not require any false 'contrivance' for me to be able to "attribute bad intentions" to an islamo-fascist character like the current Iranian 'president'. But, it must require a veritable feat of moral abdication for you to be able to put your head in the sand about the reality of the current Tehran regime and to make a diversionary (irrelevant) joke about genuine evil.  

Atributing bad intentions is easy, but it's just a conference.
I,m sure they are not as bad as the media make them out to be. And the Iranian Prime Minister seems to have a sence of humour.

@ King Cobra

1) Personally, I do NOT believe that "we should have been there vehemently putting our case" (as you put it).  Of course, one should continue to challenge those absurd notions of the holocaust-deniers elsewhere, i.e. in/at more respectable venues or vehicles. 

Attendance at such a politically-motivated conference around the absurd theme of holocaust-denial could only give some limited measure of 'credence' to the gathering that it certainly does not deserve.  Attendance at conferences and in other 'media' makes only sense if there is some degree of confidence that there could be a genuime exchange of views with 'reasonable' people, or with people who have a reasonably open mind.  The notion that the Teheran-conference organisers are open to 'reason' or to 'persuasion' is naive, because we are talking about people who deny the 'obvious'  (the well-documented nazi-holocaust).  I see only two possibilities. Either, (1) the reason for that denial is rooted in absurd ideology and associated manifest jew-hatred.  So, do not waste your breath on them, but focus on people for whom there can still be genuine 'hope', i.e. focus on the removal of 'ignorance' rather than fighting ideological windmills (Don Quichote-style) . Or, (2) many of the Holocaust-deniers do NOT believe themselves what they proclaim, but they proclaim falsehood anyway for political reasons.  So, what could be the value of 'debating' with people who do not believe themselves what they proclaim? 

2)  I do not understand what you mean by "...whether Blair has woken up?".   About what?  I presume that Blair is better informed than you and I are (certainly about British realities), and also that he 'means' well, which is better than most.  This does not mean that I agree with many of his policies.  But, then I do not have to live with the practical constraints imposed on British Prime Ministers by contemporary British culture.       

" what is deeply troubling is not only that a Canadian has attended this monstrosity "

As shown by his name, Shiraz Dossa is not Canadian. Unless Canadians feel they have much in common with him, I do not see how they could feel ashamed.
Personally, I don't feel ashamed when third-world immigrants commit crime, I just feel angry that they were given European passports.

@ King Cobra (in all earnest)

David Duke belongs to the 'old-style extreme right wing', which was/is truly racist and was certainly antisemitic.  Some commentators on this website still show 'traces' of that phenomenon.  Because that type of thinking has been thoroughly discredited and disavowed by the American public at large, people like Duke have become anti-american and anti-western in general.  Hence they will join publicly America's openly-declared enemies, particularly those enemies who have a clear anti-jew phobia.

The same phenomenon can be observed on the extreme-left. As that type of thinking has also been discredited and rejected by the American public, extreme leftwingers like Ramsey Clark (Jimmy Carter's Attorney-General) and a gallery of nutty leftwing professors do the same thing, i.e. they get a kick out of attending anti-american and anti-jewish 'gatherings'.  

However, these extremists tend to be on the fringe in western civilisation. The more worrisome development is that the broad so-called moderate-left, particularly in Europe, is showing signs of going down the same path, under the growing influence of absurd moral-relativism that is permeating the western media and education system, and which prevents 'common people' from making necessary moral judgements and encourages them to posit absurd moral 'equivalencies'.  Perhaps, 'valknot' is an example of this latter phenomenon.  This is much more disturbing than the activities of a few 'extremists' like David Duke.      

What about David Duke’s approach on this issue, is he seriously deluded and is he not sending a confusing message to those who are already, doubting a historical fact and is he not fuelling their fires? What is his real angle on this? Is this what they call ‘Sleeping with the Enemy’? here is an extract from the AP report on Fox News

"The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel," Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 "researchers" in Tehran at Ahmadinejad's invitation.

"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Also at the end of the conference, Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser who has called the Holocaust a "myth," announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."

Other members of the committee will be Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, along with Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236014,00.html

I presume @ valknot, that you'd welcome a conference questioning the historical existence of the Palestinians as a nation or the Deir Yassin massacre.

@ valknot

The author has clearly stated that "Dossa is free to hold his views".  It is thus ridiculous for you to blame the author for being "intolerant".  If anything, that charge could be better levelled at you for making UNFOUNDED charges.

Your unfounded charge is rooted in your absurd relativism. The author complained about the absence of (Canadian) media coverage of Dossa's participation in an absurd and truly despicable "conference".  The complaint was NOT about anybody's freedom of speech or "any side being allowed to talk" (about any issues).  

-- The conference is absurd because it tries to deny manifestly historical facts.  To deny the nazi-holocaust is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the European Union, the travels of Alexander the Great, or the current ongoing holocaust in Darfur/Sudan.  All these 'events' are amply documented by empirical evidence.   Which does not preclude that many aspects of these 'events' are a proper subject for debate.  However, the centrality of the events themselves should not be a subject for debate among serious and (above all) honest people.

-- The conference is despicable because of the nature of the underlying motivations for the conference. While these motivations are not manifestly 'observable', it does not require great intelligence to be able to 'fathom' them.  But for that, of course, you must have an open mind.

I would take the author's falsely presumed "intolerance" any time over your absurd (anti-historical and immoral) relativism.

I'm not upset Shoebat was refused entry to Canada..

You seem upset about others having a conference on a subject sensitive to many. But it's exactly the sensitive subjects that above all need to be talked about. I,m sure you'd agree that both sides should be allowed to talk, up till now only one side has been allowed to. Please don't be so intolerent.