Jewish leader: Iran president a ‘second Hitler’

[KG_Cloghaun]

Jewish leader: Iran president a ‘second Hitler’
Germany should charge him, not let him attend World Cup, she adds

The Associated Press

Updated: 6:17 a.m. PT June 8, 2006

BERLIN - The newly elected leader of Germany’s main Jewish organization called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “second Hitler” who should be barred from attending the World Cup in Germany, according to comments published Thursday.
Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to set foot on German soil, Charlotte Knobloch said in remarks published in Bild newspaper. The Holocaust survivor was elected the first woman president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews on Wednesday.
“For me, this man is a second Hitler,” Knobloch said. “He denies the Holocaust — that is illegal in Germany. The German government should therefore not protect him with diplomatic immunity. The authorities should rather investigate him and charge him.”
Ahmadinejad has indicated more than once that he might visit the Iranian national team during the World Cup soccer tournament, though no specific plans have been announced.
The Iranian president has sparked outrage for repeatedly questioning Israel’s right to exist, saying the country should be wiped off the map and dismissing the Holocaust as a myth.
Wiesel weighs in
In Israel, meanwhile, Nobel peace laureate Eli Wiesel suggested in an interview published Thursday that military action might be necessary to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
“I am against war, I cannot bear to hear myself say that I am in favor of war. I am not a general, but maybe it is necessary to send in a commando team to destroy the (Iranian nuclear) facilities,” Wiesel told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper.
Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor who speaks out frequently on human rights, said Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped “at any price.” He also said Ahmadinejad has become “the world’s number one Holocaust denier.”
Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched a small quantity of uranium, fueling international concerns that it was well on the way to developing an atomic bomb. The country insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Uranium enrichment can produce both fuel for nuclear reactor and fissile material for atomic warheads.
Iranian Vice President Mohammed Aliabadi was expected to arrive in Munich on Thursday to attend opening ceremonies of the World Cup the following day. He was then to head to nearby Nuremberg on Sunday to watch his country’s team play Mexico.
Aliabadi, 50, is one of seven vice presidents and is the head of the state’s physical education organization, which said he is attending the tournament independently to watch Iran play and is not representing Ahmadinejad.
Escort and protests
Still, his presence has raised concerns of protests and possible violence. His delegation was to be met at the airport by a Munich police escort, said spokesman Damian Kania.
“He is a state guest, and as such is accorded such honors,” Kania said.
Several demonstrations are already planned in Nuremberg, including one by Amnesty International, the Israeli Cultural organization and the exiled Iranian dissident groups.
Germany’s far-right activists have also threatened to hold demonstrations in support of Ahmadinejad.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13201140/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13201140/)

[2054172]

I am open for imput here boys. I have a few questions that I have struggled over in the past few years. When in your honest opion does freedom of speech stop? Should there be laws that prevents certian things being said? I am not for any form of hate or looking for a fight, I am wanting to understand about freedom. I was under the impression that "FREEDOM WAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES" ? Even if they are bad choices.

[KG_Jag]

Freedom of speech concerns the rights of an individual citizen to be free of interference by his/her government (or the government of the country in which the speech is made) to say what he wishes. It has nothing to do with the speech of a major government official in his own country, and how that official is subsequently treated by those outside his country because of what he said.

Further, even in the traditional context, there is no freedom from the consequences or reactions of others because of what you said. For example, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks has the freedom to say what she wants (although the primary speech itself occurred in the UK, not the US). Likewise, the US country music fans have a right to not buy Dixie Chicks records; not attend their concerts; and to criticize Maines for her owned expressed views. The country music radio stations have the right to not play their records because they don't like what she said and/or the personal attack she made against the President in a time of (at least low level) war. Freedom is not the immunity from consequences of or responses to one's own actions.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Well said Bill.

While you may have a right to say something controvesial, it doesnt mean there arent any serious repercussions. Such as in the case of the Dixie Chicks. Who are suffering a serious blow to their purses.

Whose to say that someone wont try to take out that Irainian leader if he tries to come to Germany. There are alot of people in Germany who take Holocaust denial as serious buisness and if someone tried to assassinate him it wouldnt suprise me in the least bit.

[2054172]

If you could point me in the direction of the Dixe Chicks thing, that would be nice. You see I don't have a TV and must of missed it? It is hard to get electrical outlets to stay in the ice walls of my igloo...... thought I would get that in there before one of you guys started having fun:)
I have to word this right or I might have homeland security on my doorstep.
I wonder what would happen if I said "that it would not surprise me if .........someone took out a leader that is more.... say on our side? When does making statements that wishes ill on or don't care if ill is done to an individual becomes hate? Even if that person doesnot hold the same religionist views as us. Believe me boys I have no love lost for the Iranian leader, and his hate statements. I struggle with how much are we to love and care for our fellow man. My faith says love your enemies, and fear not him that kills the body but him the kills the soul.

[KG_Jag]

In the US, the key is whether or not the speech incites seriously illegal and/or violent anger. For example you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. You can't say, let's go kill US President "X". If you do, the state has other values that can trump the powerful right of free speech. But you can say (in most contexts): "President X is so corrupt and immoral that I wish he was dead."

However, in countries with "hate speech" laws, of which Canada is one I believe, your permitted speech is more limited. Certain groups cannot be verbally attacked. For example a devote Jew might be arrested for saying: "Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that those that practice it should be jailed." In fact that may be what the tenants of his religion are and have been for thousands of years. In this case the hate speech laws not only make the speech illegal, but also reduce religious freedom. In my view such "make nice" laws are ill advised. They reduce the rights of the people and start the country down a very slippery and dangerous slope.

You can probably tell that I dislike "hate crimes" legislation for similar reasons. The important thing is what was done by the criminal, not whether he was motivated by the love of money or the hate of group X. In fact who is truly more dangerous to society? A person who kills at random for no reason, or someone who kills Cubans because he hates them. Which criminal is almost certainly more the more difficult to detect and stop?

By the way, the Dixie Chicks recently appeared on the cover of Time magazine. I don't know if that is widely available in Canada.

[2054172]

In the US, the key is whether or not the speech incites seriously illegal and/or violent anger. For example you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. You can't say, let's go kill US President "X". If you do, the state has other values that can trump the powerful right of free speech. But you can say (in most contexts): "President X is so corrupt and immoral that I wish he was dead."

However, in countries with "hate speech" laws, of which Canada is one I believe, your permitted speech is more limited. Certain groups cannot be verbally attacked. For example a devote Jew might be arrested for saying: "Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that those that practice it should be jailed." In fact that may be what the tenants of his religion are and have been for thousands of years. In this case the hate speech laws not only make the speech illegal, but also reduce religious freedom. In my view such "make nice" laws are ill advised. They reduce the rights of the people and start the country down a very slippery and dangerous slope.

You can probably tell that I dislike "hate crimes" legislation for similar reasons. The important thing is what was done by the criminal, not whether he was motivated by the love of money or the hate of group X. In fact who is truly more dangerous to society? A person who kills at random for no reason, or someone who kills Cubans because he hates them. Which criminal is almost certainly more the more difficult to detect and stop?

By the way, the Dixie Chicks recently appeared on the cover of Time magazine. I don't know if that is widely available in Canada.

For your first paragraph it is right on.
Your second paragraph has some wrong assumstions in it. We are allowed in Canada to hold views and say gay life style is not right , SO FAR ANYWAY. I do agree it is most likely a step towards restricting religious expression if taken the wrong way. Also any time one compromises the Jewdao-christian values that our to countries were founded on, it is a very slippery slope indeed.
Your 3rd paragragh . The answer is both to # 1 and # 2 for the 2nd.

Time is up here in the Igloo down the road.;)