Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should Holocaust denial be illegal? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that an area of history should be off limits to historical enquiry, and that people who disagree with the established version of events should be fined and barred from certain countries

    The phrase 'they wouldn't have had it any other way' comes to mind
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No,
    free speech.

    also we can deny the rape of Nanking without any legal repercussions we can deny My Lai
    we can deny British slave trade, we can deny the Russian massacres

    While I think that anyone that outright denies the holocaust is pretty stupid I see no reason to legally punish someone.


    To add to this it was obviously not 6million Jews exactly and questioning is good
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It should be legal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No, but I have no problem with those that advocate Holocaust denial being subject to ridicule.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It should not be legal to question anything. People should question far more than they do.

    Nothing is absolutely true. Everything is spin. There are no exceptions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that an area of history should be off limits to historical enquiry, and that people who disagree with the established version of events should be fined and barred from certain countries

    The phrase 'they wouldn't have had it any other way' comes to mind
    No its taking away a human right.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that an area of history should be off limits to historical enquiry, and that people who disagree with the established version of events should be fined and barred from certain countries

    The phrase 'they wouldn't have had it any other way' comes to mind
    I am not entirely comfortable with how comfortable *some people are with the idea of restraining free speech, no matter how ridiculous it may seem.
    Where do you draw the line?
    If you start banning holocaust deniers and fining them, why not conspiracy theorists? Alien advocates? Anything that isn't as the government tells them it is?
    This is not even an unrealistic slippery slope.

    So no, I think the idea is preposterous and outright dangerous and disrespectful.
    It's enough to challenge them yourself.
    No need to be thought police.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inazuma)
    I am not entirely comfortable with how comfortable you are with the idea of restraining free speech, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you.
    Where do you draw the line?
    If you start banning holocaust deniers and fining them, why not conspiracy theorists? Alien advocates? Anything that isn't as the government tells them it is?
    This is not even an unrealistic slippery slope.

    So no, I think your idea is preposterous and outright dangerous and disrespectful.
    It's enough to challenge them yourself.
    No need to be thought police.
    You should have re-read my post before sending in the hussars
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    You should have re-read my post before sending in the hussars
    *cries*
    Yes, okay, I apologise, me stupid and read too quick.
    I am reassured you are in fact decent, I use as justification that I thankfully have not yet encountered someone who has sought to bar deniers. *grovels*
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    There's only one answer to this and it is an obvious no...
    Just because you don't agree with it doesnt give anyone the right to make it illegal not to mention its an offencive/fascist idea to curtail freedom of speech.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps on the grounds of inciting racial hatred, Holocaust denial seems to exist only disparage Judaism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that an area of history should be off limits to historical enquiry, and that people who disagree with the established version of events should be fined and barred from certain countries

    The phrase 'they wouldn't have had it any other way' comes to mind
    Yes it should be illegal, and anyone who disagrees should be punished.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Well most of Europe have had laws against Holocaust denial for a few decades now, and we ourselves in our statutes have criminalised hate speech to an extent since 1986. Not exactly sure how our free speech has tremendously suffered in the two decades since in reality? And anyway I strongly believe that in terms of preventing genocide in the future we definitely need to fight against genocide denial (in both individual and political terms) and if putting that into law is one method of doing that, via restoring justice, then so be it; the slippery slope argument doesn't convince me much.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spacepirate-James)
    Well most of Europe have had laws against Holocaust denial for a few decades now, and we ourselves in our statutes have criminalised hate speech to an extent since 1986. Not exactly sure how our free speech has tremendously suffered in the two decades since in reality? And anyway I strongly believe that in terms of preventing genocide in the future we definitely need to fight against genocide denial (in both individual and political terms) and if putting that into law is one method of doing that, via restoring justice, then so be it; the slippery slope argument doesn't convince me much.
    You seem to be embracing another slippery slope argument in saying that decriminalising holocaust denial will lead to genocide, which seems far less sensible than arguing that criminalising certain interpretations of history sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in a society.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    You seem to be embracing another slippery slope argument in saying that decriminalising holocaust denial will lead to genocide, which seems far less sensible than arguing that criminalising certain interpretations of history sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in a society.
    Actually genocide denial is the last stage in Gregory Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide; he, and many other genocide scholars including myself, posits denial as one of the surest indicators of further mass killings. Remember that it was Hitler who once legitimised his killings of the Jewish populations with 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' It was Orwell who condemned the morality of the English who tried to deny the existence of Dachau, Buchenwald or of the Russian concentration camps. It was the US' government denial and inactivity over the mounting crisis in Rwanda which led to the country's tragedy. Do I think states - such as Turkey or Sudan - should be held accountable for genocide denial, which on a state level is indistinguishable from the curbing of free speech anyway? Absolutely. And if that law must also extend to individuals, as it already does in many European countries, then so be it. People fail to realise that even in international human rights law the exercising of freedom of speech may be subject to restrictions "for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spacepirate-James)
    Actually genocide denial is the last stage in Gregory Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide; he, and many other genocide scholars including myself, posits denial as one of the surest indicators of further mass killings. Remember that it was Hitler who once legitimised his killings of the Jewish populations with 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' It was Orwell who condemned the morality of the English who tried to deny the existence of Dachau, Buchenwald or of the Russian concentration camps. It was the US' government denial and inactivity over the mounting crisis in Rwanda which led to the country's tragedy. Do I think states - such as Turkey or Sudan - should be held accountable for genocide denial, which on a state level is indistinguishable from the curbing of free speech anyway? Absolutely. And if that law must also extend to individuals, as it already does in many European countries, then so be it. People fail to realise that even in international human rights law the exercising of freedom of speech may be subject to restrictions "for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
    It's all very much fuzzy logic hyperbole.

    Denial laws are a legitimate reason to deny something on the basis that they a legitimate cause to suspect that something odd is going on. The truth does not need laws to protect it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely not in my opinion
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I guess we should not take away anyone's right to free speech, no matter how crazy we think their opinions are so it shouldn't be made illegal in my opinion. But wherever possible we should politely tell them how wrong and ignorant they are being if trying to ignore one of the greatest tragedies in humankind's history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spacepirate-James)
    Actually genocide denial is the last stage in Gregory Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide; he, and many other genocide scholars including myself, posits denial as one of the surest indicators of further mass killings. Remember that it was Hitler who once legitimised his killings of the Jewish populations with 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' It was Orwell who condemned the morality of the English who tried to deny the existence of Dachau, Buchenwald or of the Russian concentration camps. It was the US' government denial and inactivity over the mounting crisis in Rwanda which led to the country's tragedy. Do I think states - such as Turkey or Sudan - should be held accountable for genocide denial, which on a state level is indistinguishable from the curbing of free speech anyway? Absolutely. And if that law must also extend to individuals, as it already does in many European countries, then so be it. People fail to realise that even in international human rights law the exercising of freedom of speech may be subject to restrictions "for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
    With respect you're talking nonsense.

    Nothing in anything you've written suggests that refraining from imprisoning David Irving for publishing his opinion that the holocaust was either exaggerated or never happened will lead to another.

    By criminalising certain interpretations of history we are continuing the legacies of the regimes we hope to keep buried, and denying their resurrectionists a fair exchange of views only serves to martyr them and further inflame their hatreds.

    I understand that freedom of speech is actually a liberty, but you fail to convince me that prohibiting historians and ordinary people from openly reaching certain conclusions about certain areas of history can ever be justified 'for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals'. It is a sentence that could have come straight out of a telescreen and I certainly cannot see Orwell agreeing with your position.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.