A Quote by Ban Ki-moon

I strongly reject threats by any member state to destroy another or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust. — © Ban Ki-moon
I strongly reject threats by any member state to destroy another or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust.
. . . the example given by the Nazi regime as to the ability of a modern state to destroy human lives with the same techniques used by modern industry, employing the bureaucratic apparatus readily available to any modern state, is one that can hardly be ignored. Because although history may not repeat itself, it is rare that anything introduced to human history is not used again. Whether the Holocaust was unique or not in terms of its precedents is one question; whether it will remain so is quite another.
As long as a member state is a member state, there are no negotiations bilaterally on any trade agreement with third parties.
We demand that people don't deny the Holocaust, and we can't ignore the tragedy of another nation.
I feel very strongly that where the facts exist, a historical novelist should use them if they're writing about a person who really lived, because a lot of people come to history through historical novels. I did. And a lot of people want their history that way.
Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them.
We strongly condemn all forms of anti-Semitism as well as any form of downplaying or denial of the Holocaust.
If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws.
It blows my mind that there are people out there who deny the holocaust. Why would you ever deny such a great achievement. It's like denying the cure for polio or something.
I believe it is my responsibility as a member of Congress to ensure that I protect our country from any and all threats.
Changing the DNA of a large, multilateral organization such as the United Nations to deal effectively with modern threats is not easy. Indeed, when the United Nations was created in the wake of World War II, threats came almost exclusively from one state carrying out acts of aggression against another.
Reject labels. Reject identities. Reject conformity. Reject convention. Reject definitions. Reject names.
There the union of Church and State tends strongly to paralyze some of the members of the body of Christ. Here there is no such influence to destroy spiritual life and power.
If something is really outrageous, it doesn't matter if it is one culture, or another, it's outrageous.
Many people believe that the current system must inevitably end in total annihilation. They reject, sometimes very emotionally, any attempts to analyze this notion.
Since many people have been asking me to elaborate on why I think "Inglourious Basterds" is akin to Holocaust denial, I'll try to explain what I mean as succinctly as possible, by paraphrasing Roland Barthes: anything that makes Fascism unreal is wrong. For me, "Inglourious Basterds" makes the Holocaust harder, not easier to grasp -- as a historical reality, I mean, not as a movie convention. Insofar as it becomes a movie convention, it loses its historical reality.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!