Law criminalizing denying things...
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I'm not saying that the Holocaust is propaganda and inflated.
It isn't propaganda, but it has been inflated by the Jews. As you inferred, they were not just Jews; many other minorities were put in these camps.We should be able to say this. But there are quite a few anti-free speech laws in countries that portray themselves as free. You cannot say anything pro-Nazi in Germany, for example. Eugenics only gets discussed on the bravest of TV shows. It's "thought-crime".
TheHeretic said:
...Is it just me that feels very u comfortable with these laws? France has just passed a law criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide. Whatever happened to free speech? At what point do we need to involve a legal solution to people with oddball opinions, most of whom are ignored. It is already illegal in several European countries to deny the holocaust took place, which again seems very harsh, totalitarian, and against free speech. I realize giving people scope to say what they want won't appeal to many, but where does it stop, where will it end? There has already been talk of blasphemy laws in the UN banning criticism of religion, which would overstep many boundaries.
Opinions?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16314373
Free speech.... Well the holocaust happened, it's a fact. I don't see an issue with the law at all. You can't make up stuff about people and expect no comeback so for a persecuted race, they should have some form of protection, especially given the nature of what happened. There's freedom of speech and freedom to libel/spread disinformation and hate.... Opinions?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16314373
Religion is different; that's something that hasn't been proven or is just a theory and so can be debated. Oddball opinions are different too - they're not aimed at a particular person or race. There's a balance between freedom of speech and people's/group's rights.
Pothole said:
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?
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!
What do you mean by nazis? Those who wore the uniforms, those who supported their aims actively, those who were passive? Nazi as a term is wooly. Was the chap who drove the train a nazi? How about the regular soldiers who were often used to herd the unfortunates onto the trains?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!
I can appreciate why the term is used. To call them Germans is wrong as there was considerable support for the pogram across many countries, but without a clear idea of what is meant by the word it means nothing. Mosley probably wasn't a nazi although much of his wife's family was. Certainly his wife and a sister-in-law or two.
The support for Mosley came mainly from the working class. My family were left wing, communist party members. An uncle fought in the International Brigade. Whilst there were others in our area of east London who felt the same, they were in a minority.
My father was beaten, quite badly, for his belief that Jews should be treated the same as everyone else. When he reported it to the police he was told to clear off.
Mostly the anti fascist movement was left wing and therefore limited. Cable Street was a political battle, very well organised by the left and from what I was told by my family, there were few Jews involved. Buses were organised, food supplied (this in 1930s when people would walk miles for free food). Many feel that it was a threat to the government as well. Hence the Public Order Act.
There was considerable anti-government feeling at the time and a strong left wing pressure group. Most supporters were not particularly political. They just wanted jobs and food.
In other words, despite the suggestion that it was a major uprising against the threat of the ultra-right some of those who were there suggest that it was more of an anti-government rally, a show of strength to frighten the powers that be into helping them. Didn't work of course.
And the story of the holocaust is much more than figures. Of course it is. We do not know 'everything' about it. Documents obviously help but they only go so far.
Derek Smith said:
Pothole said:
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?
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!
What do you mean by nazis? Those who wore the uniforms, those who supported their aims actively, those who were passive? Nazi as a term is wooly. Was the chap who drove the train a nazi? How about the regular soldiers who were often used to herd the unfortunates onto the trains?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!
I can appreciate why the term is used. To call them Germans is wrong as there was considerable support for the pogram across many countries, but without a clear idea of what is meant by the word it means nothing. Mosley probably wasn't a nazi although much of his wife's family was. Certainly his wife and a sister-in-law or two.
The support for Mosley came mainly from the working class. My family were left wing, communist party members. An uncle fought in the International Brigade. Whilst there were others in our area of east London who felt the same, they were in a minority.
My father was beaten, quite badly, for his belief that Jews should be treated the same as everyone else. When he reported it to the police he was told to clear off.
Mostly the anti fascist movement was left wing and therefore limited. Cable Street was a political battle, very well organised by the left and from what I was told by my family, there were few Jews involved. Buses were organised, food supplied (this in 1930s when people would walk miles for free food). Many feel that it was a threat to the government as well. Hence the Public Order Act.
There was considerable anti-government feeling at the time and a strong left wing pressure group. Most supporters were not particularly political. They just wanted jobs and food.
In other words, despite the suggestion that it was a major uprising against the threat of the ultra-right some of those who were there suggest that it was more of an anti-government rally, a show of strength to frighten the powers that be into helping them. Didn't work of course.
And the story of the holocaust is much more than figures. Of course it is. We do not know 'everything' about it. Documents obviously help but they only go so far.
I never suggested Cable Street was a major uprising against anything.
You appear to contradict yourself here:
"There was considerable anti-government feeling at the time and a strong left wing pressure group. Most supporters were not particularly political. They just wanted jobs and food." or maybe it's just how it scans.
Back to the OP; I don't see how not being able to deny the holocaust stifles this kind of debate. Do you?
shauniebabes said:
ExChrispy Porker said:
Denying the holocaust supports nazism. It's as simple as that really. Plus it's very stupid.
Saying the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the Germans supports nazismAnd the two are directly comparable - the same order of magnitude of killing, and the same reason (wanting to wipe a race off the face of the earth). The only difference is that Turkey still doesn't recognise it as a genocide.
As was mentioned a bit further up this thread, the French move is politically motivated. Sarkozy doesn't want Turkey in the EU, and with this law Turkey will effectively have to recognise the genocide to join the EU.
TheHeretic said:
Very much my viewpoint. in the case of the holocaust, it assumes a direct link from denying, (well, it's not even denying it, it seems to be merely questioning it), deems you a nazi, or anti-Semitic. I don't think it is neccesarily the case.
In the case of the Armenian genocide, what is the hate bit? There were no nazi types, and there was no Jews involved. How does it correlate to hate speech, or whatever?
As an addition, is being a Nazi illegal? is being a white supremacist illegal? Is being far right illegal?
Not if you can claim its your religion!In the case of the Armenian genocide, what is the hate bit? There were no nazi types, and there was no Jews involved. How does it correlate to hate speech, or whatever?
As an addition, is being a Nazi illegal? is being a white supremacist illegal? Is being far right illegal?
As for the Holocaust, most people I see labelled 'deniers' are nothing of the sort. Very few 'deny' the Holocaust, they simply disagree over certain points, like that church of england guy with his gas chambers.
OK - as one of the very few "extreme lefties" on PH, let me render you all speechless by saying that I strongly oppose any laws making "denying" something illegal. Such laws demostrate authoritarianism of the very worse kind.
The point about freedom of expression as a fundamental liberty is inextricably linked to the need for members of societies to have access to information allowing them ascertain "the truth" - as far as that is ever possible of course.
The problem with "deniers" is NOT that they deny things, or even tell untruths - these are readily exposed - it is their motivation for doing so. Saying something may well be questionable can be an act of great courage (try questioning certain things on here
) and done in pursuit of truth (which I would argue is always in everyone's interest), but if it is done to propagate hatred, racism etc then it will almost certainly be exposed as such and also probably fall foul of appropriate laws.
I regard "denial laws" as an attack on freedom.
The point about freedom of expression as a fundamental liberty is inextricably linked to the need for members of societies to have access to information allowing them ascertain "the truth" - as far as that is ever possible of course.
The problem with "deniers" is NOT that they deny things, or even tell untruths - these are readily exposed - it is their motivation for doing so. Saying something may well be questionable can be an act of great courage (try questioning certain things on here
) and done in pursuit of truth (which I would argue is always in everyone's interest), but if it is done to propagate hatred, racism etc then it will almost certainly be exposed as such and also probably fall foul of appropriate laws.I regard "denial laws" as an attack on freedom.
jaybirduk said:
Holocaust deniers are not exercising free speech they are spouting lies motivated by racial hatred. We have laws that control what people say already, ask John Terry.
The laws state "diminish" as opposed to "deney" don't they?This is obviously a free speach issue as the numbers quoted look suspiciously like a big round number. The term "diminish" doesn't just apply to troublemakers but also, potentially, to any genuine historian pointing out a flaw in the sum.
The only way to eradicate stupid ideas is to get them into the open and demolish them. Banning debate or discussion in certain areas hinders this process. If you truly believe a viewpoint is wrong and should not be held then show to believers that this is the case, don't ban it, ignore it and hope it will go away.
Mr GrimNasty said:
These types of laws really are only one step away from appointing a witch finder general.
Frankly, I think they already HAVE appointed the witchfinder general, who gets to decide what we may or may not think. It's a sad blow for freedom and what is right when such laws are imposed.
Freedom of speech means freedom for those views with which you disagree, not just those you agree with. You can not to my mind have nor accept that there is free speech with such a position, for free speech only for you is not free speech at all.
TheHeretic said:
...Is it just me that feels very u comfortable with these laws?
No, it's complete idiocy on behalf of the French, who are just the latest in a line of European countries to start with this nonsense. And if I'm not wrong, hasn't the UK banned people from travelling here because they are Holocaust deniers? If there is any denial that should be made illegal it should be that of science, but again I'm not serious because any attempt to legislate against opinion is the action of people who are not fit to be in a position of responsibility.ExChrispy Porker said:
TheHeretic said:
You've missed the point of what he said. This isn't a thread about Nazism, or the holocaust, rather this trend to make denying, or questioning something illegal. It is essentially criminalizing an opinion.
No I didn't.he implied there was some 'historical debate' regarding the holocaust. Just the sort of thing Neo Nazis like to pretend.
Having an opinion is fine. It's what you do with it. Sometimes it's better to keep it to yourself.
Its a thin line between questioning the events at the camps and questioning the governments stories about WMDs' who knows what they will make illegal next.
IMO all things should be up for debate. Whats the worst that can happen, you find out sombody you know is an idiot?
ps this comes from sombody who family was directly involved in these kind of things and no they didnt fall out of the guard tower.
IMO all things should be up for debate. Whats the worst that can happen, you find out sombody you know is an idiot?
ps this comes from sombody who family was directly involved in these kind of things and no they didnt fall out of the guard tower.
Pothole said:
Ah yes, those 'regular soldiers' who were 'used'. I forgot about them. Isn't that the Eichmann defence?
I never suggested Cable Street was a major uprising against anything.
You appear to contradict yourself here:
"There was considerable anti-government feeling at the time and a strong left wing pressure group. Most supporters were not particularly political. They just wanted jobs and food." or maybe it's just how it scans.
Back to the OP; I don't see how not being able to deny the holocaust stifles this kind of debate. Do you?
I think you miss my point about the description nazi. Could the soldiers be described thus? Obviously it depends on your point of view. What they did was criminal of course.I never suggested Cable Street was a major uprising against anything.
You appear to contradict yourself here:
"There was considerable anti-government feeling at the time and a strong left wing pressure group. Most supporters were not particularly political. They just wanted jobs and food." or maybe it's just how it scans.
Back to the OP; I don't see how not being able to deny the holocaust stifles this kind of debate. Do you?
Your suggestion on Cable Street seemed to be that those who demonstrated against the fascists were working class. That's not what I was told. I could be wrong of course but from what I understand the make-up, not to say motives, were, to say the least, mixed.
I would suggest just wanting to be treated with consideration is not political as such. Perhaps I should have said party political.
My suggestion was that laws stifle research.
Derek Smith said:
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.
If a prof started to suggest that what was accepted might be wrong then he would be pilloried. We've seen it with global warming to the extent that it is impossible to know what is true. Say something along the lines of the cause of the rise in temperature not being proven could render you unemployable by a university.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.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the present understanding of what went on in the holocaust, or the figures. But we must allow academics to investigate, to start from a premise that accepted wisdom is wrong. But you'd have to have a death wish to do that with such legislation on the statute books.
There is considerable, and apparently ample, legislation to charge anyone trying to stir up hatred against Jews, homosexuals et al.
How about evolution deniers? It is very dangerous to my way of thinking and it is not covered by 'hate' legislation. Should we prosecute those who tell such lies?
Derek Smith said:
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.
Why should there be such laws? There are an almost infinite number of ways of categorising people and reasons to hate nearly any of them. I hate people who hover in the middle lane of 3 lane motorways when they're not overtaking anyone. I hate people who jump queues. I hate middle aged men who wear mickey mouse T shirts, and I hate fat girls who think they're sexy.
None of that means I want to wipe them off the face of the earth. It doesn't even negate any given one of them being a perfectly nice, reasonable and decent individual whose company I would enjoy in other circumstances, but I reserve my right to hate them in a given moment, and say awful things about them to whoever cares to listen.
If you boil it down, it's really only certain behaviours at certain times I find irritating, and the light of an open, rational debate would show it for exactly that. The weird, paranoid, guilty introspection of laws governing who can say what about whom, and when and why, just makes for a closed and awkward society where resentments fester and grow, hidden away from the light of examination, and so forced upon those who can not or will not examine such things.
Most hatred is baseless and silly, and doesn't need rigorous academic study to overcome. The simple act of saying it aloud will render it worthless in the eyes of those who listen, and quite often to the speaker himself.
Religious, racial and ethnic groups, and any other grouping you care to mention are no different. And this is the only real defence of free speech, and the reason total and uninhibited free speech is, always has been and always will be the only way to run a free society. If you truly believe that all these variously sliced victim groups are equals of one another, then let each one defend itself. If someone says wheelchair users should be shot, let a man in a wheelchair shoot him down. If someone says blacks, gays, jews or gypsies are an expendable nuisance, then let one of their number, defend them as a group and prove him wrong as an individual, on equal terms.
For heavens sake don't give these morons the credence of saying that it takes a government full of middle class, able bodied white men to defend them by way of interfering laws and protected minorities who are deemed too stupid and helpless to defend themselves.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff