Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by limetang
I think this highlights the problem more clearly than anything else. "Any act of genocide", well of course that's referring to the acts of genocide that have happened, so who is the great almighty authority that decides with reference to the law which acts of genocide are deemed to have happened?
This is decided by a judge and a jury of peers in a court of law, in reference to a specific case.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jkruger1
The Islamic terrorists might argue that you need to impose limits with a gun to stop the nightmare of Western culture haunting the world, and a culture which they would argue wishes to close down the free speech of ISIS to discuss using any method possible to propagate the will of the Prophet.
They can do that (anddo) in their own islamic world, where people are regulalrly murderedfor supposed 'slights to mohammed' and tens of thousands are killedevery year for islamist ideologies. But the west made the decisionlong ago it eosnt want to live under dark ages mentality of any type,let alone an islamic one. I assume various million muslims also madethe same choice, when they left to live in the West.
Original post by Josb
Yeah, do that and come back once it's written.
It's a hypothetical example. Jesus....
Original post by comptroller
This is decided by a judge and a jury of peers in a court of law, in reference to a specific case.
Oh yes, but miscarriages of justice do happen, why should this hypothetical case be any different?
On another note, If we're to be consistent with our views on holocaust denial then we must admit the problem isn't that holocaust denial in and of itself harms anybody but that it is a catalyst for dangerous ideas to be present in peoples minds, which then COULD lead to violence. So the solution is simple, introduce thoughtcrime laws no?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by limetang
Oh yes, but miscarriages of justice do happen, why should this hypothetical case be any different?
I did not claim otherwise. The justice system is not perfect.
Original post by comptroller
I did not claim otherwise. The justice system is not perfect.
True, but what I'm saying is that it sets a dangerous precedent. See we're all fine to criminalise holocaust denial because as a specific case we're in some ways right in thinking that nobody is too badly harmed by such laws, the vast majority of us do agree that the holocaust happened, and that a large number of Jews were murdered in it. The problem with such laws is that they are not only incredible assaults to liberty, but that they put an end to free enquiry, as they put an end to publishing any finding (even if it were true) that contradicts an established account of such genocides.
We MUST protect holocaust denial as free speech. If our definition of free speech is to protect that views that we broadly agree with, then I have to say that we don't really have free speech at all.
Original post by limetang
True, but what I'm saying is that it sets a dangerous precedent. See we're all fine to criminalise holocaust denial because as a specific case we're in some ways right in thinking that nobody is too badly harmed by such laws, the vast majority of us do agree that the holocaust happened, and that a large number of Jews were murdered in it. The problem with such laws is that they are not only incredible assaults to liberty, but that they put an end to free enquiry, as they put an end to publishing any finding (even if it were true) that contradicts an established account of such genocides.
We MUST protect holocaust denial as free speech. If our definition of free speech is to protect that views that we broadly agree with, then I have to say that we don't really have free speech at all.
We MUST protect holocaust denial as free speech. If our definition of free speech is to protect that views that we broadly agree with, then I have to say that we don't really have free speech at all.
The specifics of the law do allow for enquiry, so you are misguided about that.
The EU provision states you may not speak 'in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred'. It is similar to the current laws in the UK against inciting racial hatred. The law is designed to only be enforced in cases of egregious incitement of violence/racial hatred.
It appears you have not actually read the EU provisions. So, let me know once you have.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by comptroller
The specifics of the law do allow for enquiry, so you are misguided about that.
The EU provision states you may not speak 'in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred'. It is similar to the current laws in the UK against inciting racial hatred. The law is designed to only be enforced in cases of egregious incitement of violence/racial hatred.
It appears you have not actually read the EU provisions. So, let me know once you have.
The EU provision states you may not speak 'in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred'. It is similar to the current laws in the UK against inciting racial hatred. The law is designed to only be enforced in cases of egregious incitement of violence/racial hatred.
It appears you have not actually read the EU provisions. So, let me know once you have.
I'm aware, but the point being that whatever the result of your enquiry you aren't allowed to say anything that contradicts the view on the holocaust. If hypothetically you did end up finding that nobody was killed by the nazis in death camps (although I find it very unlikely you would) you would not be allowed to publish that information.
Original post by Guitarded
I wasn't stating my beliefs about what happened in the Holocaust, I'm saying some people (not me, though I'm open to everyone's ideas) believe that while the Holocaust did happen, the truth has been skewed and some aspects happened differently to what we are typically lead to believe.
My point was simply (as someone earlier in the thread had stated) that no historical event should be exempt from questioning, regardless of how much evidence there is to suggest the event in question happened the way it did.
My point was simply (as someone earlier in the thread had stated) that no historical event should be exempt from questioning, regardless of how much evidence there is to suggest the event in question happened the way it did.
Regardless how much evidence... you ridicule yourself. And please read the law, in most states, while it is forbidden to deny Holocaust it is forbidden as well to say e.g. the Red Kmer were totally okay, etc....
If it is not what you believe, you have to be really aware of what you are saying, because you already share the mind, the far right it spreadening.
Original post by DorianGrayism
As I wrote before, whether it is silly or ineffective is irrelevant to why they did it.
6 million Jews dead after 100's of years of persecution in Europe. The laws are there to stop it happening again.
6 million Jews dead after 100's of years of persecution in Europe. The laws are there to stop it happening again.
What ?!
The law of 'denying the holocaust' is there to stop another holocaust from happening ? That's clearly not good enough for passing legislation, especially for something so sacred to the french as freedom of expression as they make it out to be.
Surely that's why I cannot see past this double standard and hypocrisy when after the murders they were so complicit that this was an attack on liberty and freedom.
Original post by uer23
The law of 'denying the holocaust' is there to stop another holocaust from happening ? That's clearly not good enough for passing legislation, especially for something so sacred to the french as freedom of expression as they make it out to be..
The law of 'denying the holocaust' is there to stop another holocaust from happening ? That's clearly not good enough for passing legislation, especially for something so sacred to the french as freedom of expression as they make it out to be..
Err....Try thinking about what you have written.
If the law prevents another 6 million people from dying, then that is a good reason to pass the law.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Err....Try thinking about what you have written.
If the law prevents another 6 million people from dying, then that is a good reason to pass the law.
If the law prevents another 6 million people from dying, then that is a good reason to pass the law.
So you think, merely by stating that the holocaust did not occur will lead to an outbreak of uncontrollable violence against Jews. Is that how insecure and riotous europeans are that hearing about a particular ideology will lead them to out of control violence against another group ?
Original post by uer23
So you think, merely by stating that the holocaust did not occur will lead to an outbreak of uncontrollable violence against Jews.
Nope. This is not a personal opinion on the issue.
It is an explanation of why the laws were created.
Like, I have stated twice before, whether the laws actually stop any violence and etc is another argument. I hope this is clear.
Original post by uer23
Is that how insecure and riotous europeans are that hearing about a particular ideology will lead them to out of control violence against another group ?
Well, considering less than 20 years ago, Muslims were being massacred at Srebrenica and less than 60 years ago, Jews were being gassed in Poland then....yes.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Simes
So you have chosen to not believe the evidence that is available.
You are welcome to believe what you want.
But if you start preaching your beliefs that the photographic, film and written evidence of tens of thousands is all fabricated, be expected to be called an ignorant f**kwit, a liar, a fantasist or anti-Semitic.
Unless you do it on white supremacist or radical Islamic or pro-Nazi web sites, of course, where such things are de rigueur.
You are welcome to believe what you want.
But if you start preaching your beliefs that the photographic, film and written evidence of tens of thousands is all fabricated, be expected to be called an ignorant f**kwit, a liar, a fantasist or anti-Semitic.
Unless you do it on white supremacist or radical Islamic or pro-Nazi web sites, of course, where such things are de rigueur.
You forgot to mention conspiracy websites. And some things on conspiracy websites are true like Haarp. But many ordinary people think that denying Haarp is the only reasonable belief and that photos of it must be fabricated by conspiracy websites and people who need to find a topic for their programme on TruTv.
Original post by comptroller
This is decided by a judge and a jury of peers in a court of law, in reference to a specific case.
Usually Judge and jury don't even consider whether the specific act happened in these types of cases, they just consider whether the accused denied it or not.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by limetang
Oh yes, but miscarriages of justice do happen, why should this hypothetical case be any different?
On another note, If we're to be consistent with our views on holocaust denial then we must admit the problem isn't that holocaust denial in and of itself harms anybody but that it is a catalyst for dangerous ideas to be present in peoples minds, which then COULD lead to violence. So the solution is simple, introduce thoughtcrime laws no?
On another note, If we're to be consistent with our views on holocaust denial then we must admit the problem isn't that holocaust denial in and of itself harms anybody but that it is a catalyst for dangerous ideas to be present in peoples minds, which then COULD lead to violence. So the solution is simple, introduce thoughtcrime laws no?
Another way of looking at it is not that thoughtcrime laws are a stop for catalysis to dangerous idea but that thoughtcrime laws are there because something is not quite right or balanced
in the first place. For example you wouldn't need laws around community fault lines of those fault lines were not there in the first place.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by comptroller
The specifics of the law do allow for enquiry, so you are misguided about that.
The EU provision states you may not speak 'in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred'. It is similar to the current laws in the UK against inciting racial hatred. The law is designed to only be enforced in cases of egregious incitement of violence/racial hatred.
It appears you have not actually read the EU provisions. So, let me know once you have.
The EU provision states you may not speak 'in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred'. It is similar to the current laws in the UK against inciting racial hatred. The law is designed to only be enforced in cases of egregious incitement of violence/racial hatred.
It appears you have not actually read the EU provisions. So, let me know once you have.
Never mind the provisions, people have actually been jailed for free enquiry, evidence gathering and writing on the subject of the Holocaust. And I might add that this includes a number of people who were just doing their job and had no agendas, political, religious or otherwise.
Once political correctness is gone and the truth prevails, Shoa panic Is detected. Found this on Gilad Atzmon (Israeli born writer, activist and saxophonist) youtube channel.
Original post by ZOGestablishment
Once political correctness is gone and the truth prevails, Shoa panic Is detected. Found this on Gilad Atzmon (Israeli born writer, activist and saxophonist) youtube channel.
Hahaha, that was brutal.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
