Law criminalizing denying things...
Discussion
What an interesting subject for Xmas day reflection!
My take...
This is in my opinion all about owning the right to on-going sympathy and leeway for bad behaviour.
The Holocaust undoubtedly happened, I believe the testimony of so many, I've read enough and even met one survivor to hold it as the truth.
But history is full of revisionary zeal, it is how we carry on being human, we are appalled and then feel guilt then move on and we do this either by jokes, moderate dismissal and occasionally simple forgetfulness.
By removing the revisionism we as humans need to in order to carry on being human these laws do more harm than good and will without doubt foster a darker, deeper resentment that comes by delaying a natural burying of our horrors, the horror of human history has to be buried, we need it to actually move on and be better at being humane.
It is essential that we keep making the same awful errors, but at each iteration we are less vile and evil, we can only do this through human revisionist thinking. By bottling up the past and presenting it without revision [this revision is part of the 'psyche' of us believing we can be better than our ancestors] is playing with the deeper psyche of mankind and is a very bad thing indeed.
The 'thought police' aspect is despicable not just for the straight-forward reason of intrusion but more importantly for the reasons I have outlined above.
This leads to the other darker reason for the policing.
Sympathy is a strange emotion, it lasts only a short while if you lose empathy with a belief, if the Jews are victims, perennial victims, then they have a far greater leeway in our minds to do dreadful things themselves before we lose that sympathetic resonance with them.
There is no denying the holocaust just as much as there is no denying that the Jews have behaved no better than their own tormentors in the Second World War, on a smaller scale granted, but the parallels are there in stark outline.
By holding the past up as a form of 'This is why' for their own appalling behaviour, it being both a deflection and mask, only compounds the dark harvest of revulsion that will eventually overwhelm even the collective guilt we all feel for the horror unleashed on the innocents in the Holocaust.
I suggest that if you believe that this subtle manipulating of the past darkness is just a figment of my own fevered imaginings then compare how the great collective here feel about the Gypsys and the Jews, both suffered appalling, needless and overtly evil deaths in similar proportions but one has the Worlds sympathy and the other still suffers the prejudice that was present for both prior to the revelation of the Holocaust.
The Jews [rightly] did not any longer and still don't want to be as reviled as outsiders like the Gypsies still are to this day.
In that, it has to be admitted that the manipulation of sympathy orchestrated by the Jewish state has been spectacularly successful [or perhaps the failure to do so by the Gypsies a spectacular failure] all things considered...
But human nature is something that can never be sublimated indefinitely and history tells us that rebounds are fiercer the longer they are pent up or delayed.
The laws will be, in my opinion in the final account, counter-productive.
Think of it as a train crash that is going to happen but we are all stopped from pulling the communication chord and slowing the train.
My opinion, not the sites and quite possibly no-one elses.
My take...
This is in my opinion all about owning the right to on-going sympathy and leeway for bad behaviour.
The Holocaust undoubtedly happened, I believe the testimony of so many, I've read enough and even met one survivor to hold it as the truth.
But history is full of revisionary zeal, it is how we carry on being human, we are appalled and then feel guilt then move on and we do this either by jokes, moderate dismissal and occasionally simple forgetfulness.
By removing the revisionism we as humans need to in order to carry on being human these laws do more harm than good and will without doubt foster a darker, deeper resentment that comes by delaying a natural burying of our horrors, the horror of human history has to be buried, we need it to actually move on and be better at being humane.
It is essential that we keep making the same awful errors, but at each iteration we are less vile and evil, we can only do this through human revisionist thinking. By bottling up the past and presenting it without revision [this revision is part of the 'psyche' of us believing we can be better than our ancestors] is playing with the deeper psyche of mankind and is a very bad thing indeed.
The 'thought police' aspect is despicable not just for the straight-forward reason of intrusion but more importantly for the reasons I have outlined above.
This leads to the other darker reason for the policing.
Sympathy is a strange emotion, it lasts only a short while if you lose empathy with a belief, if the Jews are victims, perennial victims, then they have a far greater leeway in our minds to do dreadful things themselves before we lose that sympathetic resonance with them.
There is no denying the holocaust just as much as there is no denying that the Jews have behaved no better than their own tormentors in the Second World War, on a smaller scale granted, but the parallels are there in stark outline.
By holding the past up as a form of 'This is why' for their own appalling behaviour, it being both a deflection and mask, only compounds the dark harvest of revulsion that will eventually overwhelm even the collective guilt we all feel for the horror unleashed on the innocents in the Holocaust.
I suggest that if you believe that this subtle manipulating of the past darkness is just a figment of my own fevered imaginings then compare how the great collective here feel about the Gypsys and the Jews, both suffered appalling, needless and overtly evil deaths in similar proportions but one has the Worlds sympathy and the other still suffers the prejudice that was present for both prior to the revelation of the Holocaust.
The Jews [rightly] did not any longer and still don't want to be as reviled as outsiders like the Gypsies still are to this day.
In that, it has to be admitted that the manipulation of sympathy orchestrated by the Jewish state has been spectacularly successful [or perhaps the failure to do so by the Gypsies a spectacular failure] all things considered...
But human nature is something that can never be sublimated indefinitely and history tells us that rebounds are fiercer the longer they are pent up or delayed.
The laws will be, in my opinion in the final account, counter-productive.
Think of it as a train crash that is going to happen but we are all stopped from pulling the communication chord and slowing the train.
My opinion, not the sites and quite possibly no-one elses.
TheHeretic said:
Everyone forms opinions based on many things. Logic, reason, experience, and yes, even politics, as well as probably a few others. However, by simply using;
Logic, reason, experience, and politics to stifle an opinion, you gain absolutely nothing.
I think we are not that far apart, I was trying to ask you to consider how what you perceive of as "logic, reason and experience" in any particular situation might lead you to a different conclusion to someone else. That is the essence of politics. I'm not trying to use politics to stifle any opinion.You and I for instance, might, using our logic, consider all religions to be baseless in any facts or true evidence. Followers of any religion might consider it, for themselves, logical.
Perhaps what we are considering is that lawmakers are going too far?
WhoseGeneration said:
I think we are not that far apart, I was trying to ask you to consider how what you perceive of as "logic, reason and experience" in any particular situation might lead you to a different conclusion to someone else. That is the essence of politics. I'm not trying to use politics to stifle any opinion.
You and I for instance, might, using our logic, consider all religions to be baseless in any facts or true evidence. Followers of any religion might consider it, for themselves, logical.
Perhaps what we are considering is that lawmakers are going too far?
I've been saying that since I started the thread. As I said, we use many things to arrive at decisions, including politics, and I agree with Gene on several of his political points. You and I for instance, might, using our logic, consider all religions to be baseless in any facts or true evidence. Followers of any religion might consider it, for themselves, logical.
Perhaps what we are considering is that lawmakers are going too far?
However, the epistemological argument isn't particularly something that is helpful, or particularly relevant to this discussion, mainly because regardless of what your definitions of reason, etc are, they will still be in a ballpark area. Rescinding the right to investigate, question, or offer opinion in these areas is the issue, for the reasons already stated.
Taking the "thought denial" argument and extrapolating it a bit (and scarily Ron Paul over in the USA is of this opinion), should we get rid of all legislation that bans discrimination? It's not a huge leap from denying the Holocaust to saying you don't want Jews working in your office.
davepoth said:
Taking the "thought denial" argument and extrapolating it a bit (and scarily Ron Paul over in the USA is of this opinion), should we get rid of all legislation that bans discrimination? It's not a huge leap from denying the Holocaust to saying you don't want Jews working in your office.
No, because they are very different things. Discrimination is a direct issue for a person, or persons. Having an academic opinion of a historical event is exactly that. If that opinion veers off, and enters the range of other discrimination laws, then by all mean, prosecute. For example, an academic who argues that, for whatever reason, the numbers don't add up for the numbers killed, and has ledgers, and documents to back it up... He may be charged with denying the holocaust, despite having reason to do so, (and even if he doesn't, arguing against it isn't directly affecting the life of anyone. They may be offended but so what? People are offended every day of the week by various things, that are said, etc.
The difference is when opinion becomes an action, or intent to action, I think. Someone denying someone an opportunity based on their skin colour, etc, has a direct action for whoever is involved, be it a job, treatment, individual violence, etc. Whilst the 2 may overlap in motivation, or ideology, it is not a catch all link between one, and the other.
TheHeretic said:
No, because they are very different things. Discrimination is a direct issue for a person, or persons. Having an academic opinion of a historical event is exactly that. If that opinion veers off, and enters the range of other discrimination laws, then by all mean, prosecute.
For example, an academic who argues that, for whatever reason, the numbers don't add up for the numbers killed, and has ledgers, and documents to back it up... He may be charged with denying the holocaust, despite having reason to do so, (and even if he doesn't, arguing against it isn't directly affecting the life of anyone. They may be offended but so what? People are offended every day of the week by various things, that are said, etc.
The difference is when opinion becomes an action, or intent to action, I think. Someone denying someone an opportunity based on their skin colour, etc, has a direct action for whoever is involved, be it a job, treatment, individual violence, etc. Whilst the 2 may overlap in motivation, or ideology, it is not a catch all link between one, and the other.
I chose religion rather than race quite specifically since it has most to do with the denial argument - both religion and holocaust denial are matters of belief rather than science IMO, with no denigration meant to any religious believers by that statement.For example, an academic who argues that, for whatever reason, the numbers don't add up for the numbers killed, and has ledgers, and documents to back it up... He may be charged with denying the holocaust, despite having reason to do so, (and even if he doesn't, arguing against it isn't directly affecting the life of anyone. They may be offended but so what? People are offended every day of the week by various things, that are said, etc.
The difference is when opinion becomes an action, or intent to action, I think. Someone denying someone an opportunity based on their skin colour, etc, has a direct action for whoever is involved, be it a job, treatment, individual violence, etc. Whilst the 2 may overlap in motivation, or ideology, it is not a catch all link between one, and the other.
So in the example, on one hand we have a man who believes passionately that at some point in the past god sent down ten rules on tablets of stone, and at some point in the future will send his son to save us for the first time. On the other hand we have a man who believes passionately that there was no holocaust. Neither of them is going to murder in the street, but they both hold what are certainly minority views in this country. Why should we protect one, and persecute the other?
WhoseGeneration said:
Yet both, depending upon their oracular powers, could influence others?
Quite possibly. But saying the holocaust didn't happen could not be construed as meaning "kill jews" in a court, so can't come under religious and racial hatred laws. It's not hate speech, it's just a belief; the Old Testament tells us that "No man shall sleep with another man; God hates that" (Leviticus 18) but that belief is protected by the Human Rights Act, and you could conceivably be taken to court for discriminating against someone who themselves had discriminated on that basis.
So our government and courts have already waded quite deeply into the minefield of making value judgements about beliefs. So I believe with the current statute book we would be being incredibly hypocritical if we did not continue to make value judgements about beliefs. Whether those judgements are for the government and court to make is another matter entirely.
AJS- said:
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.
HC, or rather some of it, deals with exciting people into actions against groups. I would accept the argument that other laws are broken in almost all cases.
But isn't a purpose of a government to protect its individuals and groups? If we suggest, as you seem to, that it is all down to the individuals to protent themselves then we get to the situation of allowing the likes of, say, a militant religious nut to incite others into violence against others then we end up with war on the streets, as we can see in other countries.
You can, for all I care, hate those who drive in the middle lane of a motorway. Medical opinion seems to suggest that you harm your health by doing so but I would not dream of trying to impose my beliefs on you just because I think it will benefit your health. However, should you start trying to physicaly push a car from the middle lane into the inside lane, using your 4 x 4 truck against the other's Micra then I would suggest sanctions should be used against you. If you incited others to do so then that too should be illegal.
You can hate all Jews, those with ginger hair or fatties if you wish. That is something which you, as an individual in a democracy, should be free to do. But step over the line from personal rights to attacking others, or inciting like-minded people to do so, then there should be legislation in place to protect those they are attacking.
Whethe 'hate crime' legislation is the way to go is open to considerable argument but I don't care what you or others think. But I do feel that you should not be allowed to incite hatred against those who drive in the middle lane in a manner which might cause them to attack drivers who, for whatever reason, just because of their location.
A democracy is a balance between rights and obligations. Both can go too far and the main point of having a parliament is where this line should be drawn. My feeling is that the state should step in to protect groups against persecution, and that people should also have the right to say and do anything they want. The conflict between the two beliefs has occupied philosophers for centuries.
If we ignore the precise location of the line in the sand for the moment, or for the next few centuries, I find it quite reasonable to make it illegal to stir up hatred against others in a manner which renders them likely to be attacked. However, I am unhappy with the government putting discussion of certain areas of history out of bounds.
The only thing that history teaches us is that we never learn from it. We go on making the same mistakes time and time again. But you never know your luck.
I have a Mickey Mouse T-shirt. I wear it occasionally when I go to see my eldest granddaughter as she likes it. You say you hate me when I wear it. That bothers me not one bit. Try and stop me doing so, or stiring up others to hate me and possible take unlawful action against me and I will become upset and turn to hate legislation to protect my rights, even if it is merely the rights to look stupid and to entertain my granddaughter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/...
Guardian said:
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
otolith said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/...
What? You mean something of that ilk not to do with nazism? What will those in favor argue now? Guardian said:
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
TheHeretic said:
And which issues would these be? Where will it end? Who is to declare what is deemed a subject not for discussion?
That is precisely it. The arrogance of a person who thinks they can tell everone else what they may or may not think or believe or say. And the hypocrisy of someone saying what they believe whilst denying that same thing of others.Perhaps people will be happy when denying AGW is a crime (as has been posited!).
Jasandjules said:
Perhaps people will be happy when denying AGW is a crime (as has been posited!).
And not for the first time. Remember the Nobel award winning, US Vice president, and presidential candidate Al Gore has pretty much said the same thing. As I said earlier in the thread, this is not just an issue about Naziism. It has implications that go beyond that narrow range.
NightRunner said:
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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Life_aft...
Derek Smith said:
I have a Mickey Mouse T-shirt. I wear it occasionally when I go to see my eldest granddaughter as she likes it. You say you hate me when I wear it. That bothers me not one bit. Try and stop me doing so, or stiring up others to hate me and possible take unlawful action against me and I will become upset and turn to hate legislation to protect my rights, even if it is merely the rights to look stupid and to entertain my granddaughter.
I agree, but I should have the right to say"My God, those shoes with that T Shirt, what was he thinking"
The laws in the States got on the books by the ADL go way further, one does not need to get anywhere close to the definition of hate to fall foul of this all encompassing legislation.
One more thought....do you have sufficient funds to defend yourself in court against a suit brought by ADL.
Derek Smith said:
But isn't a purpose of a government to protect its individuals and groups?
This is one area where we part company. Maybe I'm a child of Thatcher, but to my mind groups are not the business of the government. Protecting individuals is enough, whatever groups they associate with, by birth, upbringing or free decision is entirely a private matter.The crime is throwing the punch, firing the shot or swinging the bat. Doing so because the victim was black, white, gay, ginger or whatever else is no different from doing so because they spilled your pint, looked at your bird or said something you disagreed with.
Derek Smith said:
You can, for all I care, hate those who drive in the middle lane of a motorway. Medical opinion seems to suggest that you harm your health by doing so but I would not dream of trying to impose my beliefs on you just because I think it will benefit your health. However, should you start trying to physicaly push a car from the middle lane into the inside lane, using your 4 x 4 truck against the other's Micra then I would suggest sanctions should be used against you. If you incited others to do so then that too should be illegal.
Why should incitement be a crime?If I was to solicit someone to do it by offering them money, then that is one thing, but if I state my view and a solution, however absurd that solution, no one gets hurt, no cars get damaged. If someone else is weak minded enough to take up my cause and go around ramming people who exhibit poor lane discipline, it is entirely their crime, not mine.
Anyway, how far back does incitement go? Could a researcher showing that this behaviour increases the chances of an accident be inciting someone to hate them? can you incite someone to incite someone else? What books would be banned for inciting hatred?
Derek Smith said:
A democracy is a balance between rights and obligations. Both can go too far and the main point of having a parliament is where this line should be drawn. My feeling is that the state should step in to protect groups against persecution, and that people should also have the right to say and do anything they want. The conflict between the two beliefs has occupied philosophers for centuries.
There is no conflict - words do not hurt. Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose. If you have free speech then you can say what you please, about whoever you want, but you can in no sense harm them.
Harassing someone with a barrage of insults or abusive language is a different matter and quite easily separated from expressing an opinion.
Derek Smith said:
I have a Mickey Mouse T-shirt. I wear it occasionally when I go to see my eldest granddaughter as she likes it. You say you hate me when I wear it. That bothers me not one bit. Try and stop me doing so, or stiring up others to hate me and possible take unlawful action against me and I will become upset and turn to hate legislation to protect my rights, even if it is merely the rights to look stupid and to entertain my granddaughter.
That's my point really. In the cold light of day I don't really care what T shirt you wear, I don't form any lasting judgement by it and I don't want to take any violent or illegal action against you or your be-Disney shirted brethren.I only made that comment because I'd seen a particularly goofy looking 50 something wearing the offending T shirt earlier in the day. He bumped past me in a crowded shopping centre and I had one of those momentary, not-worth-mentioning flashes of "anger" that make me frown a bit and mutter something under my breath about his stupid T shirt.
Supposing I had been an extremely violent lunatic and decided to lay into him and do him an injury, then would you rather I was prosecuted for uncontrolled violence or for finding his T shirt irritating? If I had shouted "take that you Mickey Mouse T shirt wearing oaf" as I stamped on his face, does that somehow make the act of an irrational, violent outburst worse?
My take on a free society is that we are ultimately judged on our actions - the thoughts, prejudices and actions leading up to them are irrelevant. The law can intervene to stop violence, theft and destruction, but the reasons leading up to them are between the individual and his conscience, IMO.
AJS- said:
Why should incitement be a crime?
If I was to solicit someone to do it by offering them money, then that is one thing, but if I state my view and a solution, however absurd that solution, no one gets hurt, no cars get damaged. If someone else is weak minded enough to take up my cause and go around ramming people who exhibit poor lane discipline, it is entirely their crime, not mine.
Anyway, how far back does incitement go? Could a researcher showing that this behaviour increases the chances of an accident be inciting someone to hate them? can you incite someone to incite someone else? What books would be banned for inciting hatred?
Incitement as such isn't a crime. It used to be until fairly recently. The term was used in its dictionary sense. The new word is (I think) encourage and it has to be unreasonable given the knowledge of the defendant.If I was to solicit someone to do it by offering them money, then that is one thing, but if I state my view and a solution, however absurd that solution, no one gets hurt, no cars get damaged. If someone else is weak minded enough to take up my cause and go around ramming people who exhibit poor lane discipline, it is entirely their crime, not mine.
Anyway, how far back does incitement go? Could a researcher showing that this behaviour increases the chances of an accident be inciting someone to hate them? can you incite someone to incite someone else? What books would be banned for inciting hatred?
So if a person sets out to, let us say, bomb a church on Christmas Day, but does nothing themselves other than encouraging/inciting others to do so by, perhaps, standing on a street corner telling everyone that Christians should be bombed, then I feel that the state should step in to protect the individuals/group threatened.
That said, a chap standing on street corner has a limited audience, not something one could say about a political party, a major religion, a newspaper, a television company, or a website host.
Rights are all right but there is a balance. If we go along the route of no intervention by the judiciary then, history shows, groups and individuals will be persecuted. I agree that each individual has a responsbility and is the master of their own will but the unfortunate fact is that the majority of people can be affected by such 'encouragement'. Some research suggests that everyone has a 'trigger'.
You ask how far back incitement can go. This is a matter for the courts.
You suggest that there is a difference between inciting an offence and inciting an offence where it is not committed. Many feel that this is the same as someone throwing a punch which misses (an assault). Everything was present but accuracy. Give a man a gun in order to shoot someone and your liability should not be limited by how experienced a marksman he is.
There is no hate in a lot of 'hate' crimes. In my experience (so to speeak) a man does not strike his wife out of hate. The motivation is complex, much too much so for clarification by one word. It is just an easy word to use, giving the utterer some legitimacy not present in all such offences had they been described accurately. I do not believe you hate middle lane drivers. They may well irritate you, enrage you, but hate?
Everyone has, it would appear, inalianable rights. Hand in hand with the organisation which defines and protects these rights should be obligations. One of those obligations is to live and let live. The difficult bit is in the balance between the state's demand that you leave others alone and the right to do as you wish.
There is no line in the sand as such. It depends on individual interpretation. On the one hand you are suggesting people should be allowed to say anything even if it encourages others to commit offences. I disagree. However, given the OP's first comment, I also believe that there should be no offence of denying accepted history. Part of my reasoning is that if the denial encourages others to commit offences then the legislation exists to protect those individuals/groups. If there is no such encouragement then the state should wind its neck in.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff