Law criminalizing denying things...

[TheHeretic]

...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

[jaybirduk]

TheHeretic said:

It is already illegal in several European countries to deny the holocaust took place, which again seems very harsh, totalitarian, and against free speech.

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.

[TheHeretic]

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.

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.

Free speech, and hate speech are not the same thing. Denying something is not the same as hate speech either.

What the hell John Terry has to say about it I don't know. I was trying to raise what I thought was a valid question, not wave arms about in a red top rage type of way.

[jaybirduk]

TheHeretic said:

Free speech, and hate speech are not the same thing. Denying something is not the same as hate speech either.

I said it was motivated by hatred (in the case of the holocaust) not that it was hate speech.

TheHeretic said:

I was trying to raise what I thought was a valid question

You did, and I was offering my opinion on the matter raised

[ExChrispy Porker]

Denying the holocaust supports nazism. It's as simple as that really. Plus it's very stupid.

[s2art]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Denying the holocaust supports nazism. It's as simple as that really. Plus it's very stupid.

Depends. If I was to say that I am skeptical that the Nazis actually managed to kill as many as claimed, would you say I was denying the holocaust? There has to be room for free speech to enable historical debate and research. Ultimately free speech is more important than not offending someone.

[TheHeretic]

jaybirduk said:

TheHeretic said:

Free speech, and hate speech are not the same thing. Denying something is not the same as hate speech either.

I said it was motivated by hatred (in the case of the holocaust) not that it was hate speech.

TheHeretic said:

I was trying to raise what I thought was a valid question

You did, and I was offering my opinion on the matter raised

It may well be motivated by hate in some cases, (and the holocaust is just one example, there are others). The point is that can free ideas be reigned in by legislation? It is not that I am opposed to stopping hate speech, (the likes of Hamza, and so on, who preach hatred, intolerance, and action, etc need to be controlled), but should simply saying "I'm not convinced the evidence of the holocaust holds up" as a criminal offence? It just seems to verge on the Orwellian idea in 1984, rather than part of a democratic ideal. Plenty of people say things we do not agree with, or find abhorrent, and yet we don't march them all off to prison just because we don't happen to agree with them.

I strongly disagree with creationists, (as does the majority of the scientific community), and yet I would not dream of sending anyone to prison, or having a criminal record for thinking that way. There is a great deal of intolerance in the world, as well as the UK when it comes to homosexuals, and yet it can be preached as a sin from pulpits across the land, and the globe, and yet that is not considered a hate crime. Certain aspects of religion have harsh penalties for apostasy and yet these people are not sent to prison, (nor would I wish it, unless they took action).

At what point does denying a genocide nigh on 100 years ago deem a criminal conviction? It just seems so damned odd to me. Like the old adage;

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it"

As I said, denying something is not neccessarily hate speech, so why do certain things have laws like this?

[TheHeretic]

s2art said:

Depends. If I was to say that I am skeptical that the Nazis actually managed to kill as many as claimed, would you say I was denying the holocaust? There has to be room for free speech to enable historical debate and research. Ultimately free speech is more important than not offending someone.

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?

[ExChrispy Porker]

s2art said:

Depends. If I was to say that I am skeptical that the Nazis actually managed to kill as many as claimed, would you say I was denying the holocaust? There has to be room for free speech to enable historical debate and research. Ultimately free speech is more important than not offending someone.

What historical debate would this be?
'the nazis weren't quite as bad as some people say' Discuss.
Get a grip.

[TheHeretic]

ExChrispy Porker said:

What historical debate would this be?
'the nazis weren't quite as bad as some people say' Discuss.
Get a grip.

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.

[ExChrispy Porker]

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.

[TheHeretic]

It's not about nazi's... How does nazism relate to the Armenian genocide?

[ExChrispy Porker]

TheHeretic said:

It's not about nazi's... How does nazism relate to the Armenian genocide?

Pass. You raised the holocaust denier issue question in your OP...

[kiteless]

Personally, this is a tricky one and something akin to thought police.

It could be said that Tallbloke (for those that follow the Climate threads on 'ere) has been somewhat criminalized for the bare faced cheek and effrontery to a) run a 'blog that questions MMuGW, that then b) gets a post from someone else that links to leaked e-mails.

For me, one can't make a criminal of those people who have a right to clearly question something that is still in doubt. Hitchens - for example - said, "That what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This is why the likes of Steve McIntyre and Andrew Montford and Viscount Monckton (amongst many, many others) can speak out against the MMuGW propaganda.

In the same way that "holocaust deniers" (a phrase that beggars belief) have a totally untenable position, considering the evidence of the trials of Nuremburg, and that of Adolf Eichmann.

[NightRunner]

TheHeretic said:

It's not about nazi's... How does nazism relate to the Armenian genocide?

The denial part is the exact same.

Have you read about the difference between 'denial' and 'revisionism'?

I suggest you do, then the reason for making denial illegal will become clear.

Well, Christ I hope it does.

[TheHeretic]

ExChrispy Porker said:

TheHeretic said:

It's not about nazi's... How does nazism relate to the Armenian genocide?

Pass. You raised the holocaust denier issue question in your OP...

I raised the point about it already being law in certain countries, but the issue is not JUST about Naziism, hence the article and themArmenian genocide, and the Turkish response re Algeria. for me, even the holocaust deniers should not be criminalize. Ridiculed, laughed at, pointed at in the street, and ripped to shreds in debates, or in the academic arena, but criminalization? Nope, don't agree with that at all. Hate crimes, and incitement to violence, yes, anything else, nope. As I said, where will it end?

[ExChrispy Porker]

You are a libertarian which is commendable, however not everybody is as enlightened. Neo Nazis and other nasty people gain strength when 'deniers' ( of whatever atrocity ) are given the same right of expression as everyone else. In a sense you would allow them a respectability they do not deserve.

I am sure that is why those countries concerned have acted in the way they have.

[TheHeretic]

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.

[NightRunner]

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?

[fluffnik]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Denying the holocaust supports nazism. It's as simple as that really. Plus it's very stupid.

Yes indeed.

It's also very difficult to see what the rump of the Ottoman Empire did to the Armenians as anything but genocide.

But...

I'm not sure we should be criminalising ignorance and stupidity though, especially if limited to specific instances.

Thought crimes are dodgy ground, it is far better to refute than prosecute.