A lot of them might not be Jew-haters if their concerns were treated as legitimate.
Why is Holocaust denial illegal?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
A lot of them might not be Jew-haters if their concerns were treated as legitimate.
Redarmy11:
Of course, but censoring academics is not the right thing to do. Rather, deal with them on a rational playing field.
Of course, but censoring academics is not the right thing to do. Rather, deal with them on a rational playing field.
Make me.
Redarmy11:
Then we have no problem if they are so clearly refuted.
Then we have no problem if they are so clearly refuted.
I disagree with that. I don't believe that every person who questions the holocaust is automatically a Jew hater. That's not a fair assumption to make.
For example, there is a professor by the name of Shiraz Dossa who teaches at a well known university in Canada. Although he has no history in denying the holocaust, and has documented many times that he believes in it, he attended the recent conference in Iran out of his own curiosity. Before the man even returned to his country, the media in Canada was already making a giant deal about it by calling him a "nazi" and suggesting that he be expelled from his job. On what grounds is this type of vilification justified? I personally think that its absurd. This type of radical treatment in itself probably causes a lot of hate because people feel they are oppressed of some very basic human rights.
The fact that these laws exist definitely make a lot of people curious. Many might ask themselves why this issue deserves special attention and policing over other commonly known facts. Why the vehement effort to silence all critics? Is there a possibility that they don't want certain information coming out that could harm their cause?
Since the holocaust is a fact, then why not encourage these so called deniers into an open debate and silence them once and for all, instead of taking away their freedom of expression? Afterall, fact is fact.
The point I was making is that, in America at least, some people put the flag on a pedestal---their reasoning is that the flag is a symbol of what America stands for, and because thousands have died for that, the flag should deserve certain protections. Twice we have tried to pass federal laws protecting the flag from desecration (flag burning), and twice the supreme court has stricken the laws down, based on free speech.
The point that the supreme court made was that, you may not agree with what is being said, and it may be horribly offensive to you and a lot of other people, but this doesn't mean that you don't have a right to say it.
What about those who advocate socialism, while minimizing the attrocities commited by Castro, Mao and Stalin? Why is Hitler such a monster when Mao and Stalin have killed more of their own people than Hitler ever did?
This is a very valid point, and one that often gets overlooked.
Another good point---if there is so much evidnece for the holocaust, then why is it even an issue? I find crackpots all the time who doubt the validity of GR, despite almost a century of experimental evidence to the contrary.
Everybody loves misguided academics who lend them incidental support. There is a thread floating around somewhere here about a conspiracy that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The websites have are filled with quotes from misguided academics.
I'm sure, though, that the case can be made that Galileo was a misguided academic...
Socialism has nothing to do with Stalin, castro or Moa. Nobody denies the atrocities commited by these gentlemen.
It's not a valid point. Holocaust denialism always has a political agenda. The facts are very simple. There was a holocaust. Denying it makes you suspicious.
The confusing thing about stalin was that he was rather indifferent to who he was killing. His own family or jews. It was all the same to him. As long as the killing kept him in control. For the nazis the genocide was purely a political ideology. They were targetting specific groups; homosexuals, mentally handicapped, gypsies, jews, slavic people.
Holocaust denial is a political statement pur sang. Denial of the genocide caused by Stalin can be interpreted in many ways.
Not being able to see the issue says enough about you.
Apologies, but I thought Comunism was extreme socialism. Perhaps I am wrong in asserting that the large scale experiments of extreme socialism have led to the largest death tolls in the modern world. Perhaps we can start another thread.
So you say that one cannot engage in an academic debate that the Holocause didn't occur (no matter how absurd the premise)?
I am also humored by this:
The Democrats (and the New York Times) in the US have been attacking the Bush administration for a similar statement: talking about terrorism makes you suspect. Do you agree with this premise? What about radical Islamic clerics in the West who preach that Westerners should either be converted to Islam or be put to the sword?
So you are saying, it doesn't matter how many you kill, it matters who you kill.
Holocaust denial has been used by certain groups to advance a political agenda, none can argue this point. However, one cannot infer that all cases of Holocaust denial are used to such ends. This is like saying that the Confederate flag is a symbol of rascism, because it was adopted by the Ku Klux Klan. Or like saying that singing the wrong verse of "Deutchland Uber Alles" (which is also illegal in Germany) makes you a Nazi.
I had hoped to carry on this discussion in a civil manner, without being accused of being racist. But, alas, I fear that more such insults will follow. If it helps you sleep at night, I am not a Holocaust disbeliever, nor do I wish to trivialize this event. I was simply interested in how others reconciled such laws with freedom of speech.
This discussion was not started as an anti-Semitic manifesto, so I wish that you would not reframe it as per your own preferences.
I think it is a fair assumption to make - since most of them are. However, those with a genuine interest are free to prove otherwise. There are no laws against 'questioning' the Holocaust. It's a valid research topic. This thread is about something else.
I'd say he's misguided, has poor judgement and has perhaps underestimated the strength of popular opinion on the subject. As a university lecturer he surely has the sense to realise that there would be a backlash? That every action has consequences? He needs to take personal responsibility for his decision to attend such a controversial event. I understand from what I read that many of his students have problems with him, and wonder why that is. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Because there's nothing to debate. No serious researcher is in a position to doubt any of the basic facts of the Holocaust because the genocide was uniquely well-documented as it occurred. Holocaust deniers - or 'revisionists' as they prefer to call themselves - therefore haven't got a leg to stand on. All of the questions they've raised have been refuted by the available evidence time and time again. For example, the Prussian Blue debate. And yet still they continue to raise the same old questions. Which makes one wonder whether their interest is purely academic or something else entirely. I'm all for freedom of expression but against giving a platform to people who consistently lie and misrepresent the truth in order to generate discontent and hatred against particular social groups. The Holocaust denial laws are an extension of the laws against hate speech. Understand them for what they are; understand that there is no academic debate worthy of the name, and that the only ones questioning the facts are those with dubious political agendas... and the laws make perfect sense.
This brings into play the question of national sovereignty. America is free to make it's own laws to protect the rights of it's citizens. Britain similarly. Now let's take a look at the countries where Holocaust denial laws exist:
- France
- Spain
- Austria
- Switzerland
- Belgium
- The Netherlands
- Israel
- Poland
- The Czech Republic
- Slovakia
- Romania
- Lithuania
- Germany
Notice a pattern there? Most of those countries were deeply affected by the Holocaust and by the regime responsible for it. They're naturally keen to avoid a recurrence, bearing in mind that many of them have large and active far-right organisations. Who is anyone to say that they can't take what steps they deem necessary in order to ensure that extremist regimes remain part of their pasts?
Advocates of socialism generally don't go around persecuting minority groups unlike their right-wing counterparts. Far-left socialist parties aren't a threat to the political mainstream or the public at large. They're very much in a minority and their activities can pretty much be disregarded. What they do doesn't have any noticeable impact on the public consciousness. Very few of them would consider themselves 'Maoists' or 'Stalinists'. The ones who do are generally considered cranks even by their close political stable-mates.
Democratic socialist parties set out their policies and you can either vote for them or not vote for them as you choose. They aren't using democratic processes with the aim of subverting them; they aren't preying on society's weakest or attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to generate mass support. When elected they deliver (more or less) what is presented at the ballot box. You know what you're getting. Unlike Fascist parties they aren't attempting to con the public into believing that they're democrats, only to deliver something far more sinister when elected. Far-right parties are dangerous because they're feeding the public very innocuous, distorted versions of what they intend to deliver and fooling greater and greater numbers of people into voting for them.
The atrocities you mentioned weren't caused by applying socialist principles, but were studies in what happens when you give one madman too much power. Socialism in principle is about devolving power, not concentrating it in the hands of lunatics. That you should connect the two shows a poor grasp of the underlying principles on your part. The Holocaust followed as a direct consequence fascist principles; the atrocities you mentioned had nothing to do with socialist ones.
I think I've already covered this. I only want to add that doubting Einstein doesn't have the social consequences that doubting the Holocaust does. Society has plenty of room for harmless cranks, but not those intent on spreading fear and hatred of minority populations.
Hm... I have a doubt here. Is it legal to lie? (okay, ironically lawyers are the worst (best?
) liars; they don't admit it though). I mean- if you lie, and admit in court that you spoke that statement (either while holding that it's true, or saying that it was a deliberate lie), can you be punished? I'm not talking about cases where you're responsible to a great deal (like if a doctor lied to his patient or anything).
And incidentally, what if you insist that it's true, even if it's something that's obviously not? For example if you said "1+1=3", and admitted in court that you said that, and still hold that it's true? Can you be punished for "lying"? What if it's a case where your statement resulted in a lot of bad things? Like if you said that taking an overdose of such and such a drug (you're not selling it or advertising it for profit or anything) would bring immortality, and as silly as it sounds, some people did believe you and did that and died. And you admit in court that you said that. Can the court punsh you for that? What if you say that you believe in it (but for perfectly understandable reasons, you don't wish immortality, so you're not taking it).
) liars; they don't admit it though). I mean- if you lie, and admit in court that you spoke that statement (either while holding that it's true, or saying that it was a deliberate lie), can you be punished? I'm not talking about cases where you're responsible to a great deal (like if a doctor lied to his patient or anything).And incidentally, what if you insist that it's true, even if it's something that's obviously not? For example if you said "1+1=3", and admitted in court that you said that, and still hold that it's true? Can you be punished for "lying"? What if it's a case where your statement resulted in a lot of bad things? Like if you said that taking an overdose of such and such a drug (you're not selling it or advertising it for profit or anything) would bring immortality, and as silly as it sounds, some people did believe you and did that and died. And you admit in court that you said that. Can the court punsh you for that? What if you say that you believe in it (but for perfectly understandable reasons, you don't wish immortality, so you're not taking it).
You can be jailed for perjury.Hm... I have a doubt here. Is it legal to lie? (okay, ironically lawyers are the worst (best?
And incidentally, what if you insist that it's true, even if it's something that's obviously not? For example if you said "1+1=3", and admitted in court that you said that, and still hold that it's true? Can you be punished for "lying"? What if it's a case where your statement resulted in a lot of bad things? Like if you said that taking an overdose of such and such a drug (you're not selling it or advertising it for profit or anything) would bring immortality, and as silly as it sounds, some people did believe you and did that and died. And you admit in court that you said that. Can the court punsh you for that? What if you say that you believe in it (but for perfectly understandable reasons, you don't wish immortality, so you're not taking it).
You'll probably be dismissed as a bit of a crank, until your converts actually start dispatching people. At that point you'll probably be in deep shit.
One can't.
If it's so certain, then there's little harm in allowing people to say it never happened.
Also, what's the Halocaust? Is it an event in the Halo game where you get to kill Jews? (In other words, it's spelled Holocaust.)
I don't think there is such a point.
This is basically it.
You're weird.
I thought Europe was the West.
Interesting. And?
spuriousmonkey said:
You don't value the right to be horribly wrong? And do you think everyone who disagrees with this ban has fascist motives?
Furthermore, if you tell them they cannot legally deny the Holocaust, they can correctly claim that their rights are being stomped on.
Socialists ought to be killed, not silenced.
Shall I interpret this as promoting an illegal activity?
Zing!
This reminds me of something I heard recently happened in Australia. I don't know the full story, so feel free to fill in the blanks and fix my mistakes. I heard that there was a controversy surrounding Australia Day concerning some radical nationalists waving the flag while they shouted their nationalist shit. The response was to ban the display of the Australian flag.
Whether or not this happened as I described it, I see this as a fitting analogy. The Australian flag has become part of the nationalist package that seeks to incite hatred (for things non-Australian, I presume). Just like I would disagree with this ban, I would disagree with a ban on denying the Holocaust.
The feelings are mutual.
That's what I'm left wondering too. The nation is unquestionably more important than some piece of cloth.
Promoting the freedom to say whatever you want and to be horribly wrong is misguided?
Then there's no reason to fear this opinion.
I have talked with a German coleague and he explained it to me like this: these Holocaust laws are part of a bigger package of atonement by Europe to the Jews. Sort of like affirmative action.
Can affirmatie action make up for years of persecution? For example, there are very few restrictions on Jews emmigrating to Europe, whereas emmigrants from some middle eastern countries must jump through all kinds of hoops.
The problem is that preferentially treating a group of people based on things other than their merit leads to animosity---for example, in the US there has been some back lash against admissions policies in universities who are seeking to increase minority representation. This has led to some animosity from people who feel that, although they were more qualified, lost a position to someone because of something else.
So it seems that such laws fail to achieve their aim---those who hated the Jews before hate them more because they get some special treatment. In other words, a country has sacrificed freedom of speech in the hopes of reconciling some past sins, only to find that those who would deny those sins anyway are being strengthened by their mutual hate of their government's protection of the victims.
Does this make any sense?
There is actually research into hate-crime legislation which shows similar trend. If, for example, we pass legislation that makes killing a homosexual a hate crime, the segment of society which despised homosexual behavior resents them more because they percieve that gay people are getting some favored status. Because there is more resentment, it seems that there is (at least a little) bigger chance that a "hate crime" will be commited.
Can affirmatie action make up for years of persecution? For example, there are very few restrictions on Jews emmigrating to Europe, whereas emmigrants from some middle eastern countries must jump through all kinds of hoops.
The problem is that preferentially treating a group of people based on things other than their merit leads to animosity---for example, in the US there has been some back lash against admissions policies in universities who are seeking to increase minority representation. This has led to some animosity from people who feel that, although they were more qualified, lost a position to someone because of something else.
So it seems that such laws fail to achieve their aim---those who hated the Jews before hate them more because they get some special treatment. In other words, a country has sacrificed freedom of speech in the hopes of reconciling some past sins, only to find that those who would deny those sins anyway are being strengthened by their mutual hate of their government's protection of the victims.
Does this make any sense?
There is actually research into hate-crime legislation which shows similar trend. If, for example, we pass legislation that makes killing a homosexual a hate crime, the segment of society which despised homosexual behavior resents them more because they percieve that gay people are getting some favored status. Because there is more resentment, it seems that there is (at least a little) bigger chance that a "hate crime" will be commited.
Sort of retroactive admission of guilt.
The laws are there because the countries never ever wants again to make the same mistake. A mistake that brought out the worse in people. The law is there because people who find holocaust denial appealing are the worst scum you can possibly find, in the league with people like milosevic. People who think it is ok to use hatred to further their own political ideas.
I don't think that "Germany" was responsible for the Holocaust---just a regime that was in power 60 years ago.
This is all a matter of perspective. History would have been different had Hitler won. Milosevic was loved by some, as was Hitler.
Nobody really cares what you think is Germany. Especially not germany.