Talk:Francis Stuart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anti-semite?

I think its a little harsh to suggest Stuart hated jews. The only evidence of any anti-semitism is in his first broadcast for the 3rd Reich. There is a lot of evidence to suggest he wasnt. If no one objects I will remove that little piece of POV after I beef up the "activities in Germany" section. Fluffy999 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult one, it is almost certain that he was anti-semitic but he did succeed in his libel action: here is what I wrote when I first wrote the article:

Francis Stuart (1902-2000) was a prolific Irish writer whose novels have a thrusting modernist iconoclasm but whose reputation has suffered from allegations of anti-semitism and Nazism.

and I think this is certainly true, I was unhappy when it was changed, again, because he had defended a libel action. The person who changed it also added material to say that Irish libel laws were unusually hard on the defendant and that the libel case would have been decided the other way in another country, I was unhappy with this because it seemed an unencylopedic comment. However, I didn't revert these changes because I didn't want to get into an edit war where I was defending Francis Stuart, I mean yuck! I would be very pleased if you could fix this part of the article up: retain the facts, he had extreme right-wing views, he supported Nazi Germany, is widely regarded as having supported Nazism and as having been anti-Semitic, quoting the references on this, retaining the information about the libel case but removing the PoV stuff about the Irish legal system.Notjim 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no PoV involved wrt Irish (and British) Libel Law. What is stated is a matter of fact. In almost no other country is a burden of *proof* (viz. to the standard of criminal law) placed on authors and publishers. Evidence of this is the vast number of high-profile libel trials held in the UK; wealthy litigants with international interests always sue there even if they're not citizens or even residents. The it would simply be wrong to interpret the result of the Stuart case as having exonerated him. Similarly, a not-guilty verdict is not considered to have exonerated the defendent in a criminal trial.

Much evidence of Stuart's anti-Jewish sentiments has only come to light since the case was settled.

Broadcasting Nazi propaganda would in itself be considered an anti-Semitic act by most people, even if Stuart had never made any explicit remarks about Jews. As a former Nazi political activist you would have thought he'd have watched his words from then on, and still he made his infamous 'worm in the rose' comment broadcast on Ch4 TV... Exactly how much evidence is needed, and why on earth do people feel the need to make his excuses for him? Dduff442 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So this is exactly the discussion I wanted to avoid because I don't want to be accused of making excuses for Francis Stuart, again yuck, but it is impossible to say what would happen if the case was tried again or in another country, we simply don't know and the comments on the libel system imply that the result was a consequence of Irish libel law, again, we just don't know and to offer an opinion is to write original research. We do know now though that more evidence of his anti-semitism has been uncovered since the case, it is good to mention this, with references, just not to speculate on the effect this would have had on the libel case, unless there is a published opinion from some reasonable authority to reference, in which case, reference it.Notjim 04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuart's Aosdána supporters set the tone in this with their unbelievable intellectual contortions in his support. As I said, broadcasting Nazi propaganda can be considered an anti-Semitic act in itself. In fact it takes fantastic intellectual contortions to come to any other conclusion.

I've added an external link to the website of the Committee to Protect Journalists which describes the unusual severity of the Irish libel laws, and re-edited the 'were the case to be re-fought today' comment to make it more NPOV. I hope you find this satisfactory. Dduff442 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am happy with that and with the anti-semitism paragraph, thanks for your help in making the article describes Francis Stuarts opinions while avoiding unsupported opinion.Notjim 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, its a shame about breaking this article up into those sections, it really had a flow. What im trying to do on wikipedia is correct a lot of the myths around Irish, ww2, nazi etc. Some people have some issues with this and I have already met with hostility from at least 1 vociferous IRA supporter on this. Anyway, all I can do is add in what I know about his activities in Germany during that time, quote people who met with him, knew him, and what he is known to have said. Anything I dont know about wont be touched. Will try to keep it in proportion and might eventually lift out details for a complete article about Irland Redaktion which refers to Stuart. :) Fluffy999 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I added a little and will add more about his broadcasts at a later date- have a few other articles to tidy up at the minute :) The second quote is fairly ambigious- he can either be describing attacks on the jews, or supposed collaboration by jews and communists to destabilise Germany- I didnt interpret it for readers. Fluffy999 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your defence of the Anti-Semitism charge is, frankly, baffling. Stuart posted clippings from Der Stuermer to friends and wrote that 'Jewish activities' were 'in many instances appalling.' This proves he WASN'T anti-semitic? How? Dduff442 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)