Turn on thread page Beta

Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Yeah, do that and come back once it's written.
    It's a hypothetical example. Jesus....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    What ?!:confused:

    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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..

    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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 ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This place gets worse everyday. :facepalm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 20, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.