Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

German Politician charged for Auschwitz Tattoo

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    So, no answer then.

    As you wish. Good luck to you.


  • Options
    #63
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    osarusan wrote: »
    I guess the government's argument is that his public display of the tattoo is the problem (and what I assume they believe they can make a case for proving is his intent), and they're not interfering in his bodily affairs.

    I understand that, but I think they are effectively the same thing.


  • Options
    #64
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I understand that, but I think they are effectively the same thing.

    Presumably it'd be the same sutuation if he wore a teeshirt with the same artwork. He'd also be prosecuted but it wouldn't be anything to do with his body.


  • Options
    #65
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    Presumably it'd be the same sutuation if he wore a teeshirt with the same artwork. He'd also be prosecuted but it wouldn't be anything to do with his body.

    Sorry, I meant I think they are effectively the same thing in this instance


  • Options
    #66
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    jimgoose wrote: »
    As you wish. Good luck to you.

    My wish? I asked you to answer the question. That chip must be interfering with your ability to read.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I don't think the tattoo is appropriate but when the Government step in and say it's a crime to have a drawing on your back, I think that's a bit far.

    Is every single Nazi symbol illegal?

    What about Buddhist Swastikas that predated the Nazi Swastika?

    Seems if you display a cartoon of Mohammed you are a champion of free speech who's only pissing off those smelly Muslims.

    If you display a swastika you are a scumbag who should be jailed for offending the superior Jews.

    Allow both or allow neither.


  • Options
    #68
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    My wish? I asked you to answer the question. That chip must be interfering with your ability to read.

    "the Swastika is a still-fresh symbol of one of the greatest horrors in recorded history"

    Remember that bit? That is the difference between the Swastika and "...skulls and Kalashnikovs and tricolours? Celtic knots..."

    Best of luck with your own reading.


  • Options
    #69
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    Presumably it'd be the same sutuation if he wore a teeshirt with the same artwork. He'd also be prosecuted but it wouldn't be anything to do with his body.

    Good point actually.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #70
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Sorry, I meant I think they are effectively the same thing in this instance

    As it so happens in this particular case, yes. But the problem the law has is the display of the symbol, regardless of whether it's on your man's body, a placard or the gable-end of his house.


  • Options
    #71
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    asherbassad wrote: »
    What about Buddhist Swastikas that predated the Nazi Swastika?

    Seems if you display a cartoon of Mohammed you are a champion of free speech who's only pissing off those smelly Muslims.

    If you display a swastika you are a scumbag who should be jailed for offending the superior Jews.

    Allow both or allow neither.

    Nobody has suggested banning Swastikas though so its a moot point.

    A tattoo celebrating 9/11 or Paris would be a more direct comparison.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,060 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    asherbassad wrote: »
    Allow both or allow neither.

    Hard to argue with that really

    I remember at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks there was a big discussion about how offence is something that's taken, not given.

    Not sure why a different argument should apply in this case

    The guy's obviously a hateful ****, but the world would be an even more fcuked up place if everyone like him was criminalised despite causing no actual harm or loss to anybody.


  • Options
    #73
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    jimgoose wrote: »
    "the Swastika is a still-fresh symbol of one of the greatest horrors in recorded history"

    Remember that bit? That is the difference between the Swastika and "...skulls and Kalashnikovs and tricolours? Celtic knots..."

    Best of luck with your own reading.


    Celtic knots *are* recognised white power symbols worn by white supremacists though. So where is the cut off? Or do you think it's right here with the one instance?


  • Options
    #74
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    asherbassad wrote: »
    ...Allow both or allow neither.

    I could present, in the best "If By Whiskey" tradition, a position either agreeing that images of Mohammed and images of the Swastika are exactly the same thing by-golly-mebucko, or that they symbolise completely different notions and levels of offence. But that would be a tad facetious... :pac:


  • Options
    #75
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    asherbassad wrote: »
    What about Buddhist Swastikas that predated the Nazi Swastika?

    Seems if you display a cartoon of Mohammed you are a champion of free speech who's only pissing off those smelly Muslims.

    If you display a swastika you are a scumbag who should be jailed for offending the superior Jews.

    Allow both or allow neither.

    Displaying a swastika to celebrate Nazism should offend any decent person, really.


  • Options
    #76
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Celtic knots *are* recognised white power symbols worn by white supremacists though. So where is the cut off? Or do you think it's right here with the one instance?

    I suppose what it boils down to is that I think the cut-off is somewhere North of those things you mentioned and South of overt Nazi symbolism. And I'm sorry if I came across as barking at you earlier, I certainly don't mean to. It's just that there are some things that piss me off a great deal. Peace, sister. :cool:


  • Options
    #77
    PucaMama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    Why are people comparing a tattoo of the tricolour to a nazi symbol? Have you lost your mind????


  • Options
    #78
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    It's a tattoo of Auschwitz with the phrase 'you get what's coming to you' under it. And people are defending his right to display it? Classy, real classy.


  • Options
    #79
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    jimgoose wrote: »
    I suppose what it boils down to is that I think the cut-off is somewhere North of those things you mentioned and South of overt Nazi symbolism. And I'm sorry if I came across as barking at you earlier, I certainly don't mean to. It's just that there are some things that piss me off a great deal. Peace, sister. :cool:

    Well these things should piss you off, and me also. I have thrown people out of tattoo shops I worked in for trying to get nazi tattoos. I have memorised as many racist and white power symbols as I can, and update my knowledge of them often, so that some tosspot doesn't get one past me.

    But for me, the government dictating what one can do with their body is a greater evil than a private citizen being an asshole with their tattoos.


  • Options
    #80
    cowboyBuilder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭cowboyBuilder


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    It's a tattoo of Auschwitz with the phrase 'you get what's coming to you' under it. And people are defending his right to display it? Classy, real classy.

    I think it means "Each to their own" .. but yeah disgusting tatoo, can't believe this guy sits on a council ..


  • Options
    #81
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Well these things should piss you off, and me also. I have thrown people out of tattoo shops I worked in for trying to get nazi tattoos. I have memorised as many racist and white power symbols as I can, and update my knowledge of them often, so that some tosspot doesn't get one past me.

    But for me, the government dictating what one can do with their body is a greater evil than a private citizen being an asshole with their tattoos.

    Understood chief, and acknowledged. But in this case they're not - they are, in Germany and quite understandably in my view, dictating that you can't display certain symbols.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    PucaMama wrote: »
    Why are people comparing a tattoo of the tricolour to a nazi symbol? Have you lost your mind????

    With skulls and Kalashnikovs? It's pretty offensive. I was asking where the cut off point for acceptability is. As it happens, I won't tattoo either.


  • Options
    #83
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    cowboyBuilder wrote: »
    I think it means "Each to their own" .. but yeah disgusting tatoo, can't believe this guy sits on a council ..

    He has a distasteful tattoo.

    You do realise that there are ex-terrorists involved in politics on this little island of ours here.

    Which is worse, ex-terrorists or a poxy tattoo?


  • Options
    #84
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    He has a distasteful tattoo.

    You do realise that there are ex-terrorists involved in politics on this little island of ours here.

    Which is worse, ex-terrorists or a poxy tattoo?

    Which is worse, rape or an earthquake?


  • Options
    #85
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,552 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bodice ripper wrote: »

    But for me, the government dictating what one can do with their body is a greater evil than a private citizen being an asshole with their tattoos.
    But, to apply your own argument, where does that end?
    Is wearing a t-shirt with the same image as the tattoo something to be arrested for, or does it still fall under the government dictating what a person can do with their body? What about waving a flag with the same image?

    Or is it just tattoos? And if so, do you not think there is something of a loophole there?


  • Options
    #86
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    osarusan wrote: »
    But, to apply your own argument, where does that end?
    Is wearing a t-shirt with the same image as the tattoo something to be arrested for, or does it still fall under the government dictating what a person can do with their body? What about waving a flag with the same image?

    Or is it just tattoos? And if so, do you not think there is something of a loophole there?

    I think tattoos are different because they are part of your body.

    But as it happens, I support people's right to wear offensive shirts and wave offensive flags. Not least because I like my arseholes up front where I can see them.


  • Options
    #87
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,552 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I think tattoos are different because they are part of your body.
    I can see your point, but it would create something of a loophole, surely.

    If the prosecutors decide that a particular image or symbol has been displayed with a certain intent, that would mean a tattoo was an exemption from that.


  • Options
    #88
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I think tattoos are different because they are part of your body.

    But as it happens, I support people's right to wear offensive shirts and wave offensive flags. Not least because I like my arseholes up front where I can see them.

    And that's fine but you can't expect somebody who is Jewish not to take offence about a Auschwitz tattoo though.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #89
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    K-9 wrote: »
    And that's fine but you can't expect somebody who is Jewish not to take offence about a Auschwitz tattoo though.

    ****, I take offence offence to it. If anything, I would rather see the tattooist charged, they're the one who profited.


  • Options
    #90
    Medusa22
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭Medusa22


    I'm in agreement with Bodice Ripper here. I think that this man is an abhorrent individual and his tattoo is a disgusting display of neo-nazism, and a politician should know better, but it seems that he's a right-wing nut from Eastern Germany.

    However, I think that every idiot should be able to get whatever they want tattooed on their body and it shouldn't be illegal, regardless of how offensive or distasteful it may be. I don't think any government should dictate what a person can or cannot have tattooed on their body.

    I understand why Germany has this rule, and I understand why people find this tattoo very upsetting and offensive, and it is designed to be provocative, and I suppose you could argue that this guy put it on display at the pool, and perhaps he should have kept it hidden. I wouldn't be too upset if someone beat him up over it, but five years in prison for any kind of tattoo is not acceptable to me.

    People in Germany still can't buy 'Mein Kampf' in its entirety - although they are reversing this rule in January 2016. I would imagine that most people don't even want to read it because it's so dull and full of lunacy, but it's a powerful symbol when it is considered too ''dangerous'' for a German person to read.

    Some games are also banned in Germany, such as Castle Wolfenstein because it contains nazi symbols, I think this is also a step too far. Now there is a problem with neo-nazis and I understand that no one wants to encourage or condone the use of nazi symbols, but the majority of the German population find it abhorrent to do so anyway. Give the people a bit of credit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Canadel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    jimgoose wrote: »
    No he may not. In particular, in Germany, he may not use it to display symbols associated with the Nazi regime or their actions. This is especially so given this man's political affiliations. The Germans, being a right-thinking and decent people, do not consider this kind of thing appropriate or acceptable.
    The banality of evil.


Advertisement