Law criminalizing denying things...
Discussion
I find it creepy, and I find all these laws creepy, including "hate speech."
The truth is we haven't had free speech for years. Free speech is not like a volume control that you can have more or less of. It's an on/off switch, you either have it or not, and as soon as you can be prosecuted for expressing an opinion then it's off.
Yes that means I support people's right to deny the holocaust or any other genocide. Or indeed to say it was a good thing. It means I support people's right to use the n word, and any other racial, ethnic, religious or nationalistic language they choose. I support people's right to make the case for necrophilia and any other cause they wish to promote.
Gratuitous offence or indecency are a matter of time and place - so if someone is standing outside a school loudly proclaiming his support for bestiality, then he's causing an affray in the same way as someone shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Libel and defamation where lies or confidential information is used to cause direct harm are a different matter again with a fairly well established civil procedure for dealing with.
The truth is we haven't had free speech for years. Free speech is not like a volume control that you can have more or less of. It's an on/off switch, you either have it or not, and as soon as you can be prosecuted for expressing an opinion then it's off.
Yes that means I support people's right to deny the holocaust or any other genocide. Or indeed to say it was a good thing. It means I support people's right to use the n word, and any other racial, ethnic, religious or nationalistic language they choose. I support people's right to make the case for necrophilia and any other cause they wish to promote.
Gratuitous offence or indecency are a matter of time and place - so if someone is standing outside a school loudly proclaiming his support for bestiality, then he's causing an affray in the same way as someone shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Libel and defamation where lies or confidential information is used to cause direct harm are a different matter again with a fairly well established civil procedure for dealing with.
We have democratically elected representitives who are supposed to be running the country, not our minds.
Slippery slope.
With regard to the Halothingy, that is the work of the ADL.
Their efforts actually reach far greater, they are opposed to such thinds as;
"The ADL publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid".[6][7]"
IMO it is ok to shut up a few nutcases and prevent possible violence, but to try to silence US citizens on how US tax money is spent is a bit over the top.
Slippery slope.
With regard to the Halothingy, that is the work of the ADL.
Their efforts actually reach far greater, they are opposed to such thinds as;
"The ADL publishes a list of the "ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US", which have included a group calling for the United States to "stop funding Israeli apartheid".[6][7]"
IMO it is ok to shut up a few nutcases and prevent possible violence, but to try to silence US citizens on how US tax money is spent is a bit over the top.
NightRunner said:
TheHeretic said:
Having a voice does not equate to respectability. The Phelps have zero respectability despite preaching their crap. As I said, the academic, media, and other arenas are there to ridicule, oppose, and prove these people wrong. Criminality merely creates martyrs.
Got any examples in relation to denial?ExChrispy Porker said:
Denying the holocaust supports nazism. It's as simple as that really. Plus it's very stupid.
So? Surely the best way to approach ridiculous ideas is to have them out in the open, where they can be freely ridiculed and argued against. After all, if nazism is so bad we should easily be able to put it down and show its shortcomings, correct?Censorship of ideas and thoughts is a very bad and counter productive thing imo.
jaybirduk said:
Holocaust deniers are not exercising free speech they are spouting lies motivated by racial hatred.
Saying what you wish IS free speech.I bet you vote Labour.
Whilst they may be morons, whilst they may be racist, whilst whatever else they may be, they should still have the right to say what they wish, in the same you are free to say that they are spouting lies motivated by racial hatred. Would you be happy if a Right Wing party got into power and made it illegal to claim the holocaust happened?
TheHeretic said:
They were examples of people who essentially have hateful views, or intolerance views I find abhorrent, yet are not jailed for them, or made criminal. Having a view the majority do not agree with should not be grounds for criminality, especially when nothing is threatened. As for examples of denial, we have the holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, I presume the Turkish will add Algeria to the list at some point as well. Arguing that these things either never happened, or was not as bad as previously feared, could put you in prison. It has even been suggested that climate change denial should be illegal, and would put you in the same category.
As you were saying that having denial as a offence creates martyrs I was hoping you'd have some specifics, unless it was just a flippant remark.NightRunner said:
As you were saying that having denial as a offence creates martyrs I was hoping you'd have some specifics, unless it was just a flippant remark.
Well, look at how much the jailing of Irving got him and his views into the public eye. Look at Geert Wilders, and the threat of jailing he was facing, etc, (he was also denied for a while entry to the UK), the criminality part gives far more exposure to these people and their cause, than otherwise just ignoring them would have. Edited by TheHeretic on Saturday 24th December 09:26
TheHeretic said:
Well, look at how much the jailing of Irving got him and his views into the public eye. Look at Geert Wilders, and the threat of jailing he was facing, etc. the criminality part gives far more exposure to these people and their cause, than otherwise just ignoring them would have.
From Irving, it seems the jail term was the final nail in the coffin- I can't really see that he got any positive exposure at all. Your argument could be applied to the common burglar being a martyr for his cause, raising the profile of burglary. I can't really see it being a valid argument at all tbh.My history teacher introduced himself when I joined my second school by saying:
"Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told is wrong. History is merely the current best guess. Unlike science, as years go by we get further from the truth."
A brilliant teacher by the way.
Over the years I have studied two eras in British history quite deeply: the British Revolution (even the name is in dispute) and enfranchisement from The First Reform Act, 1832 (so from around 1815) up until the inter war period. My ideas and beliefs have changed over the years.
The history of acadmenic history is the story of revisionists. Every professor needs to have a paper published every now and again and what better than to delve into the past, find some accepted truth and then counter it.
The Potato Famine, or at least the one in Ireland, was a big thing in my half Irish family. It was an example of how terrible the British were and how generous the Yanks were. The English side of chez Derek had to put up with periodic chastisement. Now we find that in fact food imports from England/Wales to Ireland actually increased substantially during the period, as did shipping, and the American input was, to say the least, marginal. Too late to start a family argument over Christmas of course but still interesting.
The Holocuast is not one event. It is the whole period of persecution by the Germans (not just the nazis) and others in the countries invaded. There is no doubt in my mind that we haven't got all the facts, and never will of course. But by effectively banning unrestrained research into the subject we will end up believing half truths.
If an academic found something to counter some of the cherished beliefs we have about it then they would be unable to publish without all sorts of problems. It would be professional suicide.
Cromwell wasn't nice. He was a religious fanatic with all that that entails. So how long before we get an offence of Drogheda Denial? I was fed all the rhetoric about how terrible it all was, how it was the start of the Troubles and all that. I believed it. After all, no one denied it. I then read some military histories and it seems that it is not how the priest painted it all those years after the event. In many ways it was the norm for the time. In fact Cromwell offered generous surrender terms. Still a nasty bloke though.
I'm not saying that the Holocaust is propaganda and inflated. What I am suggesting is that if we start to demonise those who look at it from a different angle then it becomes myth and we will not be able to beleive it.
Even now we paint those who persecuted Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and such as nazis but this is not true. It was the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch the French and, if Hitler had managed to cross the Channel, the British as well. Let's face it, Mosley had a strong following amongst the working class and the rich and powerful, even royalty, in this country. But we blame the nazis and everything is all right now that they are gone.
There should be laws protecting groups, such as religious, racial, lifestyle, abilities, from 'hate'. I can see no argument in a civilised society. But to make a law which effectively bans open investigation is a bad law, and ironically very much like the nazi intent to rewrite their history.
I have seven books that take specific views of the cause of the British Revolution. They are, of course, all different. I have Woolrych's Britain in Revolution, excellent book, which tries to take a non-judgemental view of the causes but can't carry it off. So how come we know everything about the Holocaust?
"Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told is wrong. History is merely the current best guess. Unlike science, as years go by we get further from the truth."
A brilliant teacher by the way.
Over the years I have studied two eras in British history quite deeply: the British Revolution (even the name is in dispute) and enfranchisement from The First Reform Act, 1832 (so from around 1815) up until the inter war period. My ideas and beliefs have changed over the years.
The history of acadmenic history is the story of revisionists. Every professor needs to have a paper published every now and again and what better than to delve into the past, find some accepted truth and then counter it.
The Potato Famine, or at least the one in Ireland, was a big thing in my half Irish family. It was an example of how terrible the British were and how generous the Yanks were. The English side of chez Derek had to put up with periodic chastisement. Now we find that in fact food imports from England/Wales to Ireland actually increased substantially during the period, as did shipping, and the American input was, to say the least, marginal. Too late to start a family argument over Christmas of course but still interesting.
The Holocuast is not one event. It is the whole period of persecution by the Germans (not just the nazis) and others in the countries invaded. There is no doubt in my mind that we haven't got all the facts, and never will of course. But by effectively banning unrestrained research into the subject we will end up believing half truths.
If an academic found something to counter some of the cherished beliefs we have about it then they would be unable to publish without all sorts of problems. It would be professional suicide.
Cromwell wasn't nice. He was a religious fanatic with all that that entails. So how long before we get an offence of Drogheda Denial? I was fed all the rhetoric about how terrible it all was, how it was the start of the Troubles and all that. I believed it. After all, no one denied it. I then read some military histories and it seems that it is not how the priest painted it all those years after the event. In many ways it was the norm for the time. In fact Cromwell offered generous surrender terms. Still a nasty bloke though.
I'm not saying that the Holocaust is propaganda and inflated. What I am suggesting is that if we start to demonise those who look at it from a different angle then it becomes myth and we will not be able to beleive it.
Even now we paint those who persecuted Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and such as nazis but this is not true. It was the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch the French and, if Hitler had managed to cross the Channel, the British as well. Let's face it, Mosley had a strong following amongst the working class and the rich and powerful, even royalty, in this country. But we blame the nazis and everything is all right now that they are gone.
There should be laws protecting groups, such as religious, racial, lifestyle, abilities, from 'hate'. I can see no argument in a civilised society. But to make a law which effectively bans open investigation is a bad law, and ironically very much like the nazi intent to rewrite their history.
I have seven books that take specific views of the cause of the British Revolution. They are, of course, all different. I have Woolrych's Britain in Revolution, excellent book, which tries to take a non-judgemental view of the causes but can't carry it off. So how come we know everything about the Holocaust?
NightRunner said:
From Irving, it seems the jail term was the final nail in the coffin- I can't really see that he got any positive exposure at all. Your argument could be applied to the common burglar being a martyr for his cause, raising the profile of burglary. I can't really see it being a valid argument at all tbh.
You really can't compare burglary with denial of something and it's criminality, can you? Burglary is the theft of someone else's property. Denial of something is merely an idea. Do you think Geert Wilders and his cases brought him, and his ideas into mainstream knowledge? Irving certainly did, as did the Austrian bloke whose name escapes me, whom Germany tried to extricate from the Uk under their Denial laws. When someone becomes a martyr for a cause, it doesn't mean they suddenly look good, or promising to others. It merely gives a stong figure to those who already support the idea. We don't see them as martyrs for their cause, any more than the hunger strikers for the IRA made us agree with them, or view them in a positive light. It would, however, be a positive thing for like minded people. That is the point.
Ridiculing in the academic arena, and so on is far more effective, I think, than creating these figures.
Gerald Toben... That was the Austrain fellow. Just looked it up. Either way, (and again, this isn't just about the Holocaust), criminalizing an admittedly whacky branch of history just seems absurd to me. Of they are inciting racial hatred, fine, charge them, of they are threatening anyone, fine, charge them, if they are doing anything of that ilk, charge them, but for having an opinion on a historical event, whichever it may be, utterly ridiculous.
Edited by TheHeretic on Saturday 24th December 09:47
TheHeretic said:
How is it not free speech, and how is denying the holocaust hate speech? Telling people to kill Jews, or that they deserved it, or whatever is hate speech... Saying, (and I am not saying I agree with these people), that there is little evidence, etc, is not hate speech to me, any more that people saying we never landed on the moon is hate speech.
You are absolutely right. Those of us who value freedom of speech (and thought) must be vigilant and prepared to stand up when special interest pressure groups try to set up an absolute which must not be questioned. Derek Smith said:
My history teacher introduced himself when I joined my second school by saying:
"Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told is wrong. History is merely the current best guess. Unlike science, as years go by we get further from the truth."
A brilliant teacher by the way.
Over the years I have studied two eras in British history quite deeply: the British Revolution (even the name is in dispute) and enfranchisement from The First Reform Act, 1832 (so from around 1815) up until the inter war period. My ideas and beliefs have changed over the years.
The history of acadmenic history is the story of revisionists. Every professor needs to have a paper published every now and again and what better than to delve into the past, find some accepted truth and then counter it.
The Potato Famine, or at least the one in Ireland, was a big thing in my half Irish family. It was an example of how terrible the British were and how generous the Yanks were. The English side of chez Derek had to put up with periodic chastisement. Now we find that in fact food imports from England/Wales to Ireland actually increased substantially during the period, as did shipping, and the American input was, to say the least, marginal. Too late to start a family argument over Christmas of course but still interesting.
The Holocuast is not one event. It is the whole period of persecution by the Germans (not just the nazis) and others in the countries invaded. There is no doubt in my mind that we haven't got all the facts, and never will of course. But by effectively banning unrestrained research into the subject we will end up believing half truths.
If an academic found something to counter some of the cherished beliefs we have about it then they would be unable to publish without all sorts of problems. It would be professional suicide.
Cromwell wasn't nice. He was a religious fanatic with all that that entails. So how long before we get an offence of Drogheda Denial? I was fed all the rhetoric about how terrible it all was, how it was the start of the Troubles and all that. I believed it. After all, no one denied it. I then read some military histories and it seems that it is not how the priest painted it all those years after the event. In many ways it was the norm for the time. In fact Cromwell offered generous surrender terms. Still a nasty bloke though.
I'm not saying that the Holocaust is propaganda and inflated. What I am suggesting is that if we start to demonise those who look at it from a different angle then it becomes myth and we will not be able to beleive it.
Even now we paint those who persecuted Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and such as nazis but this is not true. It was the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch the French and, if Hitler had managed to cross the Channel, the British as well. Let's face it, Mosley had a strong following amongst the working class and the rich and powerful, even royalty, in this country. But we blame the nazis and everything is all right now that they are gone.
There should be laws protecting groups, such as religious, racial, lifestyle, abilities, from 'hate'. I can see no argument in a civilised society. But to make a law which effectively bans open investigation is a bad law, and ironically very much like the nazi intent to rewrite their history.
I have seven books that take specific views of the cause of the British Revolution. They are, of course, all different. I have Woolrych's Britain in Revolution, excellent book, which tries to take a non-judgemental view of the causes but can't carry it off. So how come we know everything about the Holocaust?
Surely whatever else you try and present as 'evidence', you cannot deny that it was mainly Nazis who operated the trains and death camps of the final solution, can you?"Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told is wrong. History is merely the current best guess. Unlike science, as years go by we get further from the truth."
A brilliant teacher by the way.
Over the years I have studied two eras in British history quite deeply: the British Revolution (even the name is in dispute) and enfranchisement from The First Reform Act, 1832 (so from around 1815) up until the inter war period. My ideas and beliefs have changed over the years.
The history of acadmenic history is the story of revisionists. Every professor needs to have a paper published every now and again and what better than to delve into the past, find some accepted truth and then counter it.
The Potato Famine, or at least the one in Ireland, was a big thing in my half Irish family. It was an example of how terrible the British were and how generous the Yanks were. The English side of chez Derek had to put up with periodic chastisement. Now we find that in fact food imports from England/Wales to Ireland actually increased substantially during the period, as did shipping, and the American input was, to say the least, marginal. Too late to start a family argument over Christmas of course but still interesting.
The Holocuast is not one event. It is the whole period of persecution by the Germans (not just the nazis) and others in the countries invaded. There is no doubt in my mind that we haven't got all the facts, and never will of course. But by effectively banning unrestrained research into the subject we will end up believing half truths.
If an academic found something to counter some of the cherished beliefs we have about it then they would be unable to publish without all sorts of problems. It would be professional suicide.
Cromwell wasn't nice. He was a religious fanatic with all that that entails. So how long before we get an offence of Drogheda Denial? I was fed all the rhetoric about how terrible it all was, how it was the start of the Troubles and all that. I believed it. After all, no one denied it. I then read some military histories and it seems that it is not how the priest painted it all those years after the event. In many ways it was the norm for the time. In fact Cromwell offered generous surrender terms. Still a nasty bloke though.
I'm not saying that the Holocaust is propaganda and inflated. What I am suggesting is that if we start to demonise those who look at it from a different angle then it becomes myth and we will not be able to beleive it.
Even now we paint those who persecuted Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and such as nazis but this is not true. It was the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch the French and, if Hitler had managed to cross the Channel, the British as well. Let's face it, Mosley had a strong following amongst the working class and the rich and powerful, even royalty, in this country. But we blame the nazis and everything is all right now that they are gone.
There should be laws protecting groups, such as religious, racial, lifestyle, abilities, from 'hate'. I can see no argument in a civilised society. But to make a law which effectively bans open investigation is a bad law, and ironically very much like the nazi intent to rewrite their history.
I have seven books that take specific views of the cause of the British Revolution. They are, of course, all different. I have Woolrych's Britain in Revolution, excellent book, which tries to take a non-judgemental view of the causes but can't carry it off. So how come we know everything about the Holocaust?
It is already widely discussed that there was support for fascism and the Nazis all over Europe, including the UK (the battle of Cable Street and similar would tend to dent your assertion that Moseley had mass support among the working classes, at least in the East End, and no it wasn't just Jews involved as I'm sure you know) and the US. Indeed, it has been cited as one of the main reasons, generally undiscussed now, that the US took so long to enter the war.
As to the (intentionally?) naiive question about how come we know everything about the Holocaust, mainly because the perpetrators documented it for us!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff