Re: Nazi Conservationists


"Robert Seago" <rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4f21a3fba7rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1189670688.31355.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAC <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


But I thinnk most of us believe his views are offensive. Did you see
him defending his views after he was released. He sounded like a man,
deeply in denial.


That's as may be, but the holding and expressing of an opinion that even
a majority of other people might find offensive should not be a
criminal offence, IMO. What price freedom when a state starts locking
up, persecuting, exiling or executing citizens or visitors who express
opinions of which the state disapproves?

I do not disagree with you there. I'm sure that when the Austrian
government brought in those laws, it semed a sensible thing at the time.


I expect it was justified as an attempt to distance the country from any
suspicion of harbouring any lingering Nazi sympathies, and perhaps as a
means of suppression of 'neo-Nazis'. Our own government has been seeking to
justify erosion of the civil liberties of the few (e.g. internment without
trial of people they claim to believe are terrorist suspects) by reference
to the fact the general good of the many (as gauged by the Government, of
course) takes precedence. I don't know who it was first said the road to
Hell is paved with good intentions, but he/she made a good point, IMO.


.