Bright's Blog

25 comments from readers

knave
20 May 2008 at 17:24

Can I ask why can't you be holocaust denier.

The overwelming evidence is that there was a holocaust.

A few individuals saying it did not occur will not dent that consensus.

You ban them, people will think that there is a conspiracy.

Face them on TV with the evidence.

As for banning TV stations or newspapers is a dangerous path.

Martin Bright
20 May 2008 at 22:56

I haven't called for the banning of anything. I have simply pointed out that Press TV would not be tolerated in many other countries. Of course, the irony is that it would not be tolerated in Iran

SAS
23 May 2008 at 23:55

The idea of banning Press TV is a totally unacceptable one and should be eschewed by anyone who believes in freedom of the press.

What is most unfortunate is the fact the Press TV speaks of ``the West'' as if it were a monolith.

Surely it ought to recognize that ``the West'' is, in fact made up of many nations that have their own independent legal systems. Denying the Holocaust may be an offence in Germany and Austria, but not in the United Kingdom. To fail to recognize the disparity in legal systems between the nations of Europe is as silly as lumping all Islamic/Eastern legal systems into the same boat.

Emmanuel
24 May 2008 at 06:39

Could 'knave' please enlighten us and let us have the overwhelming evidence he mentions? Can he, for example, shed more light on the crematorium at Auschwitz which was built in 1949?

Emm

Ali
26 May 2008 at 13:12

Dear Martin;

I am as an midddleast citizen who think wesern democracy is good but I really wondering why talking about an historical event which affect whole world for the last 60 years can not be discussed even by Scientist in University regardless of the true or false hypothesis. Recently, you wrote very harshley about PressTV which allow pro Israeli and even necon. and anti iranian say their views. I am wondering if you are independent journalist or not. I think newstateman journalist are more open minded and independent than you.

Regards

Raj

astro3
28 May 2008 at 16:15

Dear Martin,

You describe me as a Holocaust denier. Could you very kindly tell me what ‘The Holocaust’ was and how exactly I am denying it? I’m receiving some quite strong moral damnation from even old friends, in response to what I’d hope was a physical/chemical argument. So this clarification would help.

You quote me as saying ‘"that the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible". Its true that on that Iranian program I did remark about the kinetics of gas diffusion, that it would not permit the gassing scenarios to which Rudolf Hoss ‘confessed’ at Nuremberg: viz that up to 2000 persons were crowded into a chamber maybe 30 foot long, Zyklon-B was dropped in through the roof via cylinders onto the ground, say three of them, then in 15-20 minutes everyone was dead. No heating, no fans. It takes a couple of hours for the hydrogen cyanide to evaporate from the Zyklon-B pellets, and no way could it have diffused throughout that large chamber to reach lethal levels in the time specified by Hoss, or anything at all resembling it. Especially on a cold winter’s day. I reckon only a few people around the piles of Zyklon-B would have died on the ‘Hoss scenario.’ Most of the world seems to believe in this process, characterized by its absolute physical impossibility, and it has been of late re-described without alteration in 'Auschwitz' by Lawrence Rees (2005).

Furthermore, there is not the residual cyanide in the walls of the ‘Krema’ (crematoria buildings, either shower-rooms or morgues) as measured at Auschwitz, to allow repeated cyanide gassings to have occurred. My whole case is based upon the concordance between the two chemical surveys, of Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf (1988 and 1991). See my essay, www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrnkwalls.html . The levels are simply not significantly higher than samples from ‘control’ walls from living quarters etc. The chemical evidence suggests that the Zyklon-B was used just where the German design-plans say they were used, viz the delousing chambers. Everyone screams at me that I must be a Neo-Nazi for saying this, but, Martin, am I not allowed as a science historian to reach a view about the functioning of certain chambers in Poland 66 years ago, where lots of cyanide gas was used, without having any political agenda?

NB my other more general essay, that got me thrown out of UCL (so my head of department, of Science and Technology Studies, told me) is ‘The Auschwitz gas-chamber illusion’ www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrillusion.html. In a nutshell, the ‘illusion’ here was the hoax perpetrated at Nuremberg, IMO, whereby all use of Zyklon-B was presumed to be for human exptermination, ignoring the manifest use of it for the delousing chambers as part of the struggle against typhus. A lot of people don’t realize that these chambers still exist today, and have their walls blue due to saturation with iron-cyanide from sixty years ago.

I will be very happy if anyone wants to comment, or indeed condemn me, so long as it is based on these essays that I have written, and not on unattributed web-gossip, of which there is quite a bit. I’m not competent to make any general statements about European history but this period was surely the most traumatic for European jews in their entire history so I’d have thought ‘the Holocaust’ was a reasonable term for it.

knave
02 June 2008 at 17:27

I do feel that the attack on Kollerstrom was umitagated censorship by the likes of cohen and bright.

Especially if Astro3, who I assume is kollerstrom has only pointed out the scientific arguments against the numbers killed by gassing.

Although there are many other ways of elimanating large number of people.

Hitchens has defended Irvings right to publish and he is correct to do so.

Emmanuel there is evidence for the holocaust. The written statements number in their thousands. It would be impossible to fabricate.Also the Nazi propaganda and films show their contempt for jews and other non aryans. They were looked upon as animals. They were dehumanised and it is the logical step that the nazis would iniatiate a final solution

Also Martin don't play dumb, you more than hint at banning Press Tv or articles by John Pilger, and I do not wish to live Iran, no thanks, nor do i wish to live in the southern states fed on their diet of creationism, homophobia and racism by their TV news, Fox news ( Yours and Cohen's favourite station).

Dogsmilk
02 June 2008 at 20:00

It's simply extraordinary that Nick Kollerstrom pops up here yet again acting like he's done some kind of 'research' (as opposed to simply browsing the standard Holocaust denier websites) when he's consistently refused to respond to challenges to defend his view against people with expertise on the subject and simply responded to some of my own challenges by calling for me to be...censored!

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14359&post...

Hussein
08 June 2008 at 16:52

Press TV's website has published another article attacking the holocaust deniers. So give them credit where credit's due. They are giving both sides a platform. What d'ya reckon Martin?

davidrmiller
30 June 2008 at 12:14

Dear Martin,

I'm making a film partially funded by press tv. I'm pleased to say that I have not encountered any problems dealing with them on an editorial front however I'm all too awair of the irony here. That is, I'm a filmmaker who is passionate about civil and human rights working for a world news service financed by a regime that won't even afford it's own people free and fair media. Imagine me trying to pitch a film to Press TV about the beating and torture of student activists in Iran. My feeling at the outset was that as long as my own film wasn't censored, it wasn't a problem. After all, the more viewers the better i felt. Do you believe that journalists and filmmakers at my level, have a responsibility to choose who screens their work? One could ask the same about Fox news I guess!

quarsan
24 July 2008 at 07:06

Astro3/ Nicholas Kollerstrom,

You ask "Could you very kindly tell me what ‘The Holocaust’ was and how exactly I am denying it?"

Here's your answer. On our website you wrote:

"Hi, I note you seem to object to my having defended the proposition that: no German ever put a Jew into a gas chamber. You call that Holocaust Denial, well I’m proud to be associated with it. I’m happy to defend, it any time, any place. It happens to be true!"

http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/2014

I hope this helps,

Quarsan

davidhill
30 August 2008 at 16:54

If PressTV was constantly reporting holocaust-denying propaganda then Bright would have a point. But, I have seen or read very little regarding the subject on PressTV. Indeed, although at times there may be extremest views (as there is with all media outlets at times), I have found that PressTV has a balanced view having media articles from all sections, including world peace. This is at the other end of the spectrum to mass murder. Therefore Bright's article is a very narrow and unbalanced view of PressTV.

Would he say that Richard Dawkins's assessment is true against the beliefs of around 2 billion Muslims and Christians? I very much doubt it unless he is in the minority. But there again, we have to have a free press so that people can make their own minds up and not the thinking of just one person (apparently Bright is another Dawkins and where censorship is what should be done).

Dr David Hill

World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)

Bern, Switzerland

farid4937
26 September 2008 at 02:34

Please consider that a banned press TV will benefit iranian regime most. For 3 decades, they`ve been saying to their people that there is no freedom of speech in the West. So, if press TV is banned, the clerical regime will take that as an evidence to its claims about loss of freedom of speech in western countries. I think by banning press tv, you will give a chance to islamic republic to justify its dictatorship and palpitation...

khodadad
26 September 2008 at 04:48

On the issue of Press TV and other sources referring to "The West" as a monolith (raised by SAS). Funny you should say this, considering that the "East" has been complaining about this for ages. Just listen to the news and see how often phrases such as "the Middle East" and its apparent monolithic culture, religion, and even "streets" are used. A Western thinker such as Marx even went as far as calling the whole "non-European" world and its economy "The Asiatic Mode of Production" as if China and Arabia worked the same way. So, the monolith "the West" is more a product of Western Thinking itself. Notice that we now teach classes in "Western Civilisation". So, attack the issue from the right angle.

As for Martin's article. Bullocks, if you don't mind me saying so. Why do we tolerate Fox News or Times or Sun for that matter? Get a life!

Dots77
14 December 2008 at 01:42

Creationism,racism and homophobia?Sounds a bit like iran to me Knave

Pencils
05 January 2009 at 04:07

Just having noticed this article, it seems to me that the discussion on this thread has been censored into unintelligibility already - a sad recent trend on the NS.

However, to be fair, there are no other mainstream outlets who would touch this subject with a barge pole.

Anyway, I'd just like to point out that anyone quoting the vicious race-hate site 'Harry's Place' and the loathsome David T on the wisdom of ANYTHING, much less the right to broadcast, is laughable. If the laws were seriously enforced in this land, Mr T and his collaborators would be hanged for crimes against humanity, for their role in promoting the genocidal slaughter in Iraq and Palestine.

I would also like to point out that ASTRO 3' s LINKS DON'T WORK. Also, a few of Astro's detractors have posted links, supposedly to sites which definitively destroy Astro's case - they do nothing of the sort.. They're just garbled threads which happen to mention him. I have no special interest in this, never having encountered Astro before, but he talks some sense - it's hard to tell how much, given the censorship situation.

On the topic: why should the 'holocaust' be the only event in history that can't be discussed, about which only one conclusion can be drawn from the evidence under threat of prosecution? The treatment of Germar Rudolf is a disgrace. So too, the treatment of David Irving, even if he is often his own worst enemy.

Pencils
05 January 2009 at 04:10

I just noticed the dates on the other posts on this thread. What's going on here?

fairplay
06 January 2009 at 08:47

congrat to the NS for even allowing this thread. whatever side of the fence you sit on, freedom of speech is a luxury we are taking for granted and is surely coming to an end. when a man is jailed for expressing his opinions on a historical subject that has not been openly debated by conflicting sides, surely it means there is something to hide.

why are the authorities so wrapped up in wrapping up this one page of history? do the laws apply to anything similair? when did science and history become illegal?

debate, debate, debate and then prove the doubters wrong

Naheemma
08 January 2009 at 23:06

The holocaust is no excuse to kill others.

FreetheWorld
10 January 2009 at 21:04

First of all, the question 'Why do we tolerate Press TV?' is not at all an 'interesting' question but a question which expresses your dislike of the truth and of democracy and utterly typical british prejudice.

Incase you haven't noticed, Press Tvs headquarters may be in iran but in no way is it soley 'iranian'. Their reports from foreign countries are reported by citizens of those countries, they have headquarters around the world and almost the majority of their presenters are British.

Your calling Presstv a holocaust denying station is such a lie! Presstv is the only news chanel which exposes israel's massacre and ethnic-cleansing in Palestine and openly condems it as a 21st century Holocaust and opens peoples eyes to the fact that Gaza is a massive concentration camp. Are you saying that when a 'news' station reports an event, they agree with whatever agruement was proposed there?

In that case Newstatesman should be condemmed too.

What evidence have you to accuse the only balanced and truthful news station i have ever seen as a remover of freedom of speech. how can you say they would have it closed down in most countries?

From what I see, the West offers the illusion of freedom of speech. In the past weeks there has been barely any coverage of Gaza's humanitarian crisis on ITV News. Instead, they spend all their time talking about how Dog fights are cruelty to animals and that immediate action must be taken. Are they saying that dogs have more rights than humans?

As for the BBC, in their cunning and sneeky way, they demonstrate support for Israels crimes against humanity. they only show what they want people to see. They repeatedly show images of the same handful of rockets being sent over be hamas resulting in a few shattered windows but refuse to broadcast the sluaghter of starving and thirsty women and Children. They even deny that there has been any suffering in Gaza when Presstv has always done the opposite, been fair and told the world the truth.

Peaceful
14 January 2009 at 12:29

Its so funny how Mr Martin Bright is quick to point fingers and practically issue a witch hunt against Press TV for telling the truth to its viewers, what happened to freedom of speech?

Press TV has been showing views from both sides very well, with guests and reporters from around the world including Jewish, Christians, and Athiests.

We need more channels like Press TV, quite clearly this Iranian funded channel would have been closed by its own iranians by now if anyone was to follow your trail of thought. But no, it remains open and critcal of its own and others regime.

I have seen many guests on teh show discussing their support for Israel, as well as many discussing their protests, so I believe YOU need to get your facts straight.

You have your opinions, but as a journalist you should be reporting NEWS not your opinions,.

Stop throwing a tantrum about other News sources and focus on your own bias ideas. If you think they are bias, then many think you are. So lets see some objective stories from you for a change.

No doubt you will shout me down with a response and most people expect it, and are used to it, but I have made my opinion and wonder if you would simply accept that I have one instead of making me into an evil hamas supporting iranian.

Press TV is one of teh few channels showing truthful news from both sides of the conflicting regions and we have a right to see it. I commend them for their efforts, and hope teh world will come forward to stop the injustice and appalling impunity displayed by the government of Israel.

I'm sick and tired of reporters and organisations bullying everyone who doesnt agree with US, Israel and UK Policies. Just because I believe in human rights does not make me Anti-British. Just as being Anti-Zionist does not make me Anti-Semitic.

laila
14 January 2009 at 16:38

Press tv is the only news channel that is reporting the massacre of children by the hands of the zionist regime. I am very dissapointed by the coverage of this war by bbc, i am sure many would agree. I dont know how the media is dominated by the zionists they actually control everything and filter the news according to their benefit. The crulty they have showed by attacking gaza and using chemical weapons on a women and children is unbalievable and they should be done for war crimes.

Khadeeja
14 January 2009 at 17:24

Press TV is the only news channel which shows the reality of the war in Gaza, and not the sanitized version shown to us in the hoplessly biased zionist-owned media outlets. A few days ago the Press TV building in Gaza was subject to rocket attacks by the IDF.

God help us if the only point of view we are allowed to hear regarding Palestine is the Israeli one.

Kiumars
17 January 2009 at 06:58

To: Martin Bright

Re: The Iranian state-funded station based in London.

Who do you think funds the BBC foreign programs? The answer if you don't already know is the foreign Office!

Who do you think funds the voice of America and Radio liberty? The answer is the US government!

BBC also started a Persian TV which again is funded by the home office.

Is one state-funded station better than other state-funded stations?

Before you answer this question I would like you to read the BBC charter (aka white paper), it clearly states that BBC foreign language programs MUST comply with the UK government foreign policies and be in line with the Britain's interest!

So can you really say that BBC foreign language programs can be impartial or independent when it is funded by government and has to serve the interest of the British government?

Is BBC better than PressTV? I watch both of them and can tell you "No"!

ismailaung
19 January 2009 at 08:56

Dear Martin

We should think twice what is going really and who will profit. As you known well, politic is always ......