He avers I’m an unabashed Holocaust-Denier: would it be too much to ask for a definition on this term, or is it an all-purpose hate-and-loathing term that remains undefined? Does it mean, anyone who doubts that 6 million jews were gassed? If so, I would query whether you have a right to define the term in that manner. I have argued, that the usually-designated ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz could not have been the site of mass cyanide gassings, because the residual cyanide in the walls does not permit this. There are plenty of other places it could have happened, or maybe carbon monoxide gassings took place, on which I have made no comment. So does that make me a’denier’?

But, let’s come to Unity’s main grudge, which is that I cite ‘Nazi’ sources. Do I? I certainly mention Ernst Zundel, becaue of his historic trial in Toronto, and because he funded Leuchter’s seminal research: but Unity errs in saying that I cite him anywhere – Z’s far right views are ‘good reason to question the credibility of Zundel’s writing on the Holocaust.’ I might agree here, which is why I don’t quote him. Got it?

Unity claims that I cite ‘Judicial inc,’ where is this? Then he says I allude to the website of the ‘Historical Review Press, which is owned by Anthony Hancock, who has a history of links to the far right stretching back through his father, Alan Hancock, to Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.’ Do me a favour, I cite books published by the HRP, and don’t give a toss about the political affilation of the father of its owner.

Then, ‘the Belgian-based ‘Vrij Historisch Onderzoek’, which was set up in the 1980’s by Siegfried Verbeke, a former member of the Vlaamse Militanten Orde (Flemish Order of Militants), yet another organisation with an ‘interesting’ history, which includes organising an annual neo-Nazi rally in conjunction with the League of St. George,’ I’m afraid I don’t know anything about this Belgian outfit. Doesn’t ring a bell, nope. My two articles have about 80 refs between them, can Unity point out where I allude to this?

Finally, ‘and the International Historical Review, founded by David McCalden (British, ex National Front) and Willis Carto (American, founder of the Liberty Lobby). Carto’s Noontide Press is the American published of the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ – is it the Liberal-Democratic view that no-one ought to publish the Protocols, or that anyone who does so is ethically damned? I’m really not interested in the views of publishers and my article is not about that. Why not focus on what I’m actually saying in the article, Mr Unity?
………………………………………………………….
On a different and more tranquil note, Unity scoffs at my crackpot views about crop circles: he ought to point out that this is a purely math-geometrical study (see http://www.hypermath.org). And I could add as a school math teacher these patterns have successfully been used to stimulate interest in school maths lessons.

Criminalizing possession is arbitary, but an independent rhetorical case can be made. As you should do without a priori assumptions.

I didn’t directly equate Denial with paedophila; they repulse me in different ways. NK is, at best, a facilitator for Deniers.

I didn’t mean you. CODOH does seem to be getting popular with anti-warrers, thoui.

From the BBC 17 jan:

The court heard how Mr Griffin addressed a crowd at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on 19 January 2004 and told them that white society had turned into a multi-racial hell-hole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country.

Rodney James QC, prosecuting, told the jury Mr Griffin had concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley.

Reading excerpts from the speeches, Mr Jameson said Mr Griffin had urged the crowd to vote for the BNP in order to ensure “the British people really realise the evil of what these people have done to our country”.

During his speech at the same event, Mr Collett claimed people in Bradford and Keighley were living in hell because of rapes and muggings which were always carried out by Asian people on white people.

Seems a fairly clear case of vicious racism to me, but a jury of peers acquitted him. Perhaps we should do away with them for bring the justice system into disrepute. Is there any evidence of dr nick saying similar things?

And, yes, I am comparing Deniers and antisemites to paedophiles

Paedophiles are criminals who prey on children. Storing pictures of that nature is criminal. Holocaust denial is not. Being wrong is not. So the comparison, or more accurately the smear by association, is invalid.

Don’t give us any of this rubbish about Kollerstrom’s freedom of speech being restricted, or being denied to right to tell people things they’ve heard a thousand times before. UCL – and many of its students – would have had their freedom restricted by being required to retain this nutter. Especially as he appears to have been touting his connexion in prompting his “unattractive opinions”.

I’d like to see the mechanism for that.
I think he touted his phd, which is his to do with what he wants.

Hang on, was there not some other anti-war campaigner (from Edinburgh) who recently linked to CODOH? The name’s coming to me…

Well let’s hear the name. It couldn’t be me as I wasn’t even aware of CODOH before this brouhaha. Stalking my IP address can only tell you so much.

As Goring might have said of von Rippentrop, had the Nuremberg Trials been an industrial tribunal, he deserved to be dismissed of only for his stupidity.

PAUL ==> no one to my knowledge has has shown that he is [antisemitic]. He just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the holocaust.

I remember the time when the Holocaust was seen as the gold-standard in antisemitism, and as long as those dead Jews were grieved over and only those Jews determined not to be dead were endlessly attacked, it was alright. Just what does one have to do before being declared as having a disproportionate interest in diminishing (or promoting) Jewish misfortune? Publish cartoons mocking Holocaust victims? Oh, has Simon Shepherd not already done that?

It is one of the most intensively studied acts of savagery in one of the most intensively studied wars in history. Questions can be asked whether six million died or five million died (see John Johnson’s attempt to fudge the issue over this estimated figure) or what fabric was used for lampshades at Buchenwald, but to raise the ‘questions’ [1] found at CODOH [2] crosses the line from reasonable enquiry to wilful misrepresentation and deceit.

==> No I didn’t, my view is he was punished for holding an unattractive opinion and I see that as both undesirable and oppressive.

A couple of years ago, an engineering professor at Glasgow University was escorted from the building after colleagues expressed concern that he was holding child porn on his computer (can’t recall his name). By all accounts, his work wasn’t affected and he was of no more threat to students, I assume, that Kollerstrom was to Jewish and other sane students at UCL.

So, he was dismissed only for holding unattractive opinions. Before you say owt, he had not been charged and, if you believe Kollerstrom’s approval of Denial material if of less importance, you should be able to make any rhetorical case *without* recourse to legality.

And, yes, I am comparing Deniers and antisemites to paedophiles.

Don’t give us any of this rubbish about Kollerstrom’s freedom of speech being restricted, or being denied to right to tell people things they’ve heard a thousand times before. UCL – and many of its students – would have had their freedom restricted by being required to retain this nutter. Especially as he appears to have been touting his connexion in prompting his “unattractive opinions”.

[1] Funny how Troofers so easily segue into this other form of ‘doubt’ over historical record.

[2] Hang on, was there not some other anti-war campaigner (from Edinburgh) who recently linked to CODOH? The name’s coming to me…

Similarly, no-one has shown that Nick Griffin is racist; he just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Muslims, the blacks, the Jews, and the foreigners…

Which one am I, out of interest? I’d vote for number 2, personally.

Only lazy fools and loveless cynics actually believe in the WW2 Whopperoo Tale of 6 Million Jews Exterminated by Evil Nazis.

Greatest of respect for this courageous Professor….
and the notion that he didn’t foresee the consequences of his courageous stand is ludicrous.

No I didn’t, my view is he was punished for holding an unattractive opinion and I see that as both undesirable and oppressive.

You then said that he hadn’t specifically used his position to promote his ideas; people explained that this wasn’t the point (and as an argument has no legal basis), and that it was sufficient for the disrepute to be traceable back through his position to the organization.

Well, I said there was no evidence to suggest he had. UCL’s policies obviously allow them to kick out anyone whose opinion they don’t like. I think if his scholarship was good enough to award him a fellowship, an opinion on an entirely separate matter shouldn’t affect that position. I don’t think its right to detain people for 28 days without charge, but I wouldn’t argue that it is not perfectly legal to do so.

You then mentioned that astronomy was a discipline bolstered by the peer review process and presumably therefore somehow impervious to disrepute claims (not true); people explained to you that he was an astrologer, not an astronomer, and astrology has no peer review.

If he has a phd in it, then peer review must have come into that process. That’s how they work, isn’t it?

You now seem to be trying to suggest that condemnation of Kollerstrom hinges on whether or not his PhD is in “an accepted discipline.” Nobody mentioned this before you: indeed, if his position at UCL depended at all on his PhD in history, then his practising of anti-semitic revisionism would certainly reflect more poorly on UCL, not less.

I made no such suggestion, he is being condemned for holding an unattractive opinion. Whether in astronomy or astrology, his phd was obviously worthy of his fellowship at the UCL, even if his views are not. His esoteric interests certainly seem to attract a lot of mockery.
He rejects the assertion that he is anti-semitic, and no one to my knowledge has has shown that he is. He just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the holocaust.

Given you keep shifting your stance away from areas where people have corrected you to argue about something else, and given that you have so far not demonstrated much knowledge of employment law, free speech, the humanities, the difference between proof and evidence, or details of Kollerstrom himself, It’s hard to know whether you’re trolling or not.

We all have our failings, I’ve tried to put the case for freedom of thought and expression and I don’t think I’ve deviated too much from that stance. True, I know little of dr nick, but then people above seem happy to declare him a ‘nutjob’,'loon etc and I doubt they are psychiatrists. They have a right to their opinions, of course.
As for free speech, I’ll take my view of it , where dissent is countered rather than punished, over a gloating lynch mob any day.

Thanks for pointing out the typo’s, they will forever be my undoing.

Someone gave him a phd, so it must be an accepted discipline. Astrology has been around a long time, so its probably worth taking an interest in. Theology is a flourishing topic, and there’s no evidence of any gods I can see. Academia is full of odd subjects

This is all true, but not exactly relevant. I appreciate that Godwin’s Law was broken quite early on in this debate, but there’s no need to invoke its corollary involving the length of time it takes for someone who doesn’t appreciate theology to make an unnecessary mention of the spaghetti monster.

You started off by suggesting that UCL’s actions were curtailing his freedom of speech; people pointed out that this was not the case, and that he has no freedom in law to a particular position of employment or fellowship, and that his actions had arguably brought UCL into disrepute.

You then said that he hadn’t specifically used his position to promote his ideas; people explained that this wasn’t the point (and as an argument has no legal basis), and that it was sufficient for the disrepute to be traceable back through his position to the organization.

You then mentioned that astronomy was a discipline bolstered by the peer review process and presumably therefore somehow impervious to disrepute claims (not true); people explained to you that he was an astrologer, not an astronomer, and astrology has no peer review.

You now seem to be trying to suggest that condemnation of Kollerstrom hinges on whether or not his PhD is in “an accepted discipline.” Nobody mentioned this before you: indeed, if his position at UCL depended at all on his PhD in history, then his practising of anti-semitic revisionism would certainly reflect more poorly on UCL, not less.

Given you keep shifting your stance away from areas where people have corrected you to argue about something else, and given that you have so far not demonstrated much knowledge of employment law, free speech, the humanities, the difference between proof and evidence, or details of Kollerstrom himself, It’s hard to know whether you’re trolling or not.

If your going to call me an idiot, I would expect you to prove it

It’s “you’re”, not “your”. As a good epistemologist, though, I accept that one instance does not constitute conclusive proof.

That’s putting it mildly. Sheppard is highly disturbed even by nazi standards: witness his obsessive interest in cannibalism. I’ve heard he likes to live near funeral parlours and/or graveyards.

He’s not an astronomer, he’s an astroloGER you idiot. His speciality is crop circles!

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0804/08042202

‘Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom

22 April 2008

UCL has been made aware of views expressed by Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, an Honorary Research Fellow in UCL Science & Technology Studies.

The position of Honorary Research Fellow is a privilege bestowed by departments within UCL on researchers with whom it wishes to have an association. It is not an employed position.

The views expressed by Dr Kollerstrom are diametrically opposed to the aims, objectives and ethos of UCL, such that we wish to have absolutely no association with them or with their originator.

We therefore have no choice but to terminate Dr Kollerstrom’s Honorary Research Fellowship with immediate effect.’

His articles on CODOH are/were published using the byline ‘Nick Kollerstrom PhD’ although he wasn’t stupid enough to reference his former honorary position at UCL.

UCL has a well-respected politics department. I imagine that should any of its academics be working on a [legitimate] critique of, say, Israeli policy in the West Bank, the fact that another UCL academic is a well-known Holocaust denier could be – at least – problematic for their work’s acceptance in the field…

Another london institution, the metropolitan police, did not punish its staff for bringing it into disrepute by blowing a brazilian’s head off or shooting a Forest Gate citizen for no reason at all.

The unpunished “staff” blew off the Brazilian’s head because they’d been told that Secret Intelligence said he was a suicide bomber, and shot a Forest Gate citizen because they’d been told that Secret Intelligence said he was an armed terrorist with a bomb factory; blaming them for what happened is fucking lame. However, if a member of the rozzers were to go public saying “I’m Inspector Knacker of the Yard, and my studies show the Holocaust never happened”, then he’d be out on his ear.

Irritatingly, the CODOH site is down and not archived in Google or web.archive, so I can’t confirm whether he published those while using his academic credentials or not.

What UCL choose to do with the information they now have on Kollerstrom is up to them, although as it has a noted School of Holocaust Studies I suspect that the question of whether his activities have brought the University in disrepute will be one they take very seriously.

So far as his having a ‘right’ to his job on the basis of the scholarship he pursues, there is no ‘right’ to employment in law, although he does have a right to a fair hearing should UCL choose to take action against him. However, in addition to the question of disrepute, the University may well reflect on what his writings on the Holocaust and his selection of source material might have to say about his scholarship. It is absolutely a prerequisite of academic scholarship and research that one should be able to discriminate between credible and non-credible sources, a facility Kollerstrom clearly lacks in respect of his ‘extracurricular activities’, not just in writing on the Holocaust but in all his ‘work’ on 9/11 & 7/7 – I’ve come across one article of his in which he cites David Duke as a reference.

I should also point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence and I do find it difficult to to place much credence in his denials, at least so far as anti-Semitism is concern – when his writings are based not only on sources that are well-known as Nazi apologists and anti-Semites, but so so well known, in the case of Irving, Zundel, Duke, etc. that one cannot reasonably think that he would be unaware of the background of those whose material he treats as being authoritative.