Curious deletion by Guardian comment moderators in Demjanjuk thread

That momzer Berchmans must have a friend working for CIF because all he needs to do is complain and the offending comment disappears faster than you can say antisemitism.

Michael White of the Guardian on this subject:

John Demjanjuk should not be on trial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/dec/02/michael-white-john-demjanjuk-trial

White and Buchanan: brothers under the skin:

The True Haters

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-true-haters-1495

———————

Michael White has a thing about the Holocaust. Here are just a few of the articles he has published about that genocide:

1) Here’s Michael White, in early 2008, on the Holocaust (my titles):

The Holocaust is such a bore

“MPs had a short debate yesterday to mark Holocaust Day, a familiar ritual in many countries which causes backbenchers like Hendon’s Andrew Dismore (not Jewish himself, but hot on anti-semitism) to be dismissed in newspapers as ‘Holocaust bores.’ ”

Don’t be mean to the Nazis

“My own favourite parliamentary speech on this subject remains that of the late Thatcherite economist, Lord Peter Bauer. In opposing Lady Thatcher’s 1990 war crimes bill – she used the parliament act to force it through – Bauer said approximately this: ”My Lords, I am a Jew who lost much of his family in the Holocaust. But I oppose this legislation because it is retrospective and therefore undermines the rule of law.” He then sat down. Not bad. I must check which way Mr Howard voted at the time.”

[Links no longer working]

2) Here, in late 2008, White criticises the extradition of Holocaust deniers, purely on principle, naturally. Look out for these special titbits: “an abuse of process in a country which has not – yet – succumbed to Germany’s “witch-hunt mentality”; “We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.” Jolly decent of White, however, to suggest that we should not “forget” the Holocaust:

“Two strands of the affair trouble me. One is the restriction on free speech inherent in the laws that some countries – not Britain – have against Holocaust denial. We have broader laws against racial incitement in general, which seems acceptable to me, though not to those who believe that older public order laws would have proved sufficient.”

“The other problem I have with this is process. When the European Arrest Warrant came into force in 2004 to help police fight cross border crime – and post 9/11 terrorism – more effectively it abolished the “dual criminality” principle.”

Once again, in the same piece, White attacks the War Crimes Bill:

“Holocaust denial is a lesser offence than involvement in war crimes themselves. Britain has a different problem here in that, in the chaos after 1945 when it was often hard to sort victim from persecutor, a lot of bad people slipped into this country and led quiet, guilty lives.

In 1991 Margaret Thatcher used the parliament acts to override the House of Lords, which had thrown out her war crimes bill, passed by the Commons. The average age of current MPs in 1939 was six, one peer remarked during the debate: let it go. But some 300 suspects live on in the UK, countered the bill’s supporters.

At the time I sympathised with the critics. It was all a long time ago, witnesses and accused were old, far away or even dead, their memories faulty at best. We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.

Last time I looked there had not been a single successful prosecution. Other more recent war crimes dominate the headlines. Who’s right?”

http://tinyurl.com/3w38vc