3 Years for denying Holocaust

Are you comparing some bad cartoons and the after-effects to that to the denying of the Holocaust?

Besides, the rationale in Austria by the (right-wing) liberals and conservatives is to use the §3g of the 'Verbotsgesetz' as well for the Muslims for their demonstrations against the cartoons.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Are you comparing some bad cartoons and the after-effects to that to the denying of the Holocaust?

Let's phrase this loaded question a bit differently:

Quote:

"Are you comparing blashemous cartoons that violate the law of God to the questioning a historical event?"

Do you see the problem?....

The fact is that these cartoon are deeply offensive to a large number of people. It is perhaps as deeply as Holocaust denial is to you... and the number of offended people may even be comparable.

What you are, in affect doing is saying it is OK to offend the beliefs of a minority in Europe, but you better not offend the beliefs of the majority. This is the very definition of discrimination.

You say that denial of the Holocaust is dangerous and can harm many people. Others say that riduling the prophet of God is blashpemous and immoral. Others of us don't feel like either of these statements are true.

But the issue is equality in a free society. You can't have a double standard.

Your political view on this, and even the way you phrase the question are clearly formed on your value system.

You want to shove your value system down the throats of a segment of society (Holocaust deniers) because you find their beliefs offensive, yet you are not willing to be sympathetic to the value system of another part of society (Muslims) who feel ridiculing their beliefs is offensive.

Mocking the sincere and deep feeling of offense of the minority Muslims doesn't make this any less hypocritical.

0 Replies

A bit of clarification...

I accept the argument that people are making that Holocaust denial is deeply offensive and I am sympathetic to the wish to stop anti-semitism.

The dissmisive brushing aside of Muslim offense simply to because it is not shared is making me angry.

0 Replies

Actually, ebrown, I'm not aware at all that I said/wrote something like you claim.

Especially I strongly oppose that I'm

Quote:

not willing to be sympathetic to the value system of another part of society (Muslims) who feel ridiculing their beliefs is offensive.

I've said that I might be biased due to our history; I've said that I'm not an expert in Austrian Criminal Law.
But I do think, such laws are are

a) according to both the constitutions of Austria and Germany,
b) the very best for countries with such a history.

0 Replies

Fine Walter,

The phrase "some bad cartoons" pushed a button. I don't think minimizing the feelings of those who are deeply offended by these cartoons is helpful to this discusion.

Let's leave it at that.

0 Replies

Before I say/write something which I'll have to regret later - I'm out here.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

This is not related to what continent you live on.

~~~~

The visceral fear some people have of what might result from allowing holocaust denial to continue uncontested seemed quite real when they spoke to me about it.

That may be, in part, why I think our Supreme Court was right about "justified infringement" of Mr. Keegstra's freedom of expression.

It was a poor choice of words, but meant to represent the differences between American and European views. I chose the word "continent" with respect to Europe (though it's not right there, either) and not with respect to the US. Canada usually aligns closer to Europe, so that's no big surprise.

Your more relevant point about what could possibly happen if holocaust denial was allowed is well taken, but I still disagree. Fear should not be a legitimate motivation, IMO. I object when I'm told that my government is justified in infringing on our rights because a terrorist attack might happen if they don't. I object likewise to the idea that something bad might happen if we allow the holocaust to be denied. But like I said, no biggie. If that's what works for others, so be it. It's not much more than a philosophical difference at this point, I think.

0 Replies

Quote:

The visceral fear some people have of what might result from allowing holocaust denial to continue uncontested seemed quite real when they spoke to me about it.

I think uncontested is the key word here. The US does not allow holocaust denial, or other forms of extremist racism, go "uncontested". The question is whether the need to be legally enforced.

The power of the Free Speech we enjoy in the US is that it provides an open marketplace where ideas compete. Pretty regularly the extreme ideas get defeated on their own-- more here than in Europe.

These extremist ideas are certainly contested in the US. There are many of us who will both strongly defending the rights of Nazis to publically express their ideas-- and loudly publically condemn the same ideas, at the same time.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

A bit of clarification...

I accept the argument that people are making that Holocaust denial is deeply offensive and I am sympathetic to the wish to stop anti-semitism.

The dissmisive brushing aside of Muslim offense simply to because it is not shared is making me angry.

ebrown,

as has been said before, the Austrian law, written in 1945 with the intention to prevent the "resurrection of the NSDAP", was quite likely not intended to prevent people from feeling offended...

Context, ebrown. Context.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I think uncontested is the key word here. The US does not allow holocaust denial, or other forms of extremist racism, go "uncontested". The question is whether the need to be legally enforced.

So what would happen if I stood in the middle of Harvard Square and screamed around that Holocaust was a lie? Or handed out flyers, or, dunno, spoke at some rally about it? Would I not get arrested in the States? Should I not get arrested? I sure hope they would take me in and take some action.
Are there laws in the U.S. forbidding propagation of Nazism and communism? How are they applied?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:

I think uncontested is the key word here. The US does not allow holocaust denial, or other forms of extremist racism, go "uncontested". The question is whether the need to be legally enforced.

So what would happen if I stood in the middle of Harvard Square and screamed around that Holocaust was a lie? Or handed out flyers, or, dunno, spoke at some rally about it? Would I not get arrested in the States? Should I not get arrested? I sure hope they would take me in and take some action.
Are there laws in the U.S. forbidding propagation of Nazism and communism? How are they applied?

1. You would not get arrested (actually this would not be too surprising in Harvard Square-- we get all types). If you did get arrested (presumably in some other location) you would be defended by the ACLU and your arrest would be quickly and easily overturned.

2. You should not get arrested, for the reasons I have explained (hopefully clearly) in these threads. Handing out flyers is clearly protected by the first Amendment as it should be.

3. Any laws in the U.S. forbidding propagation of Nazism and communism are unconstitutional. They are not applied.

The rights of Nazis to hold marches has been upheld in the Supreme Court (this hasn't happened to my knowledge for many years). The rights to publish and distribute Nazi or communist literature is well established and not even challenged any more.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Are you comparing some bad cartoons and the after-effects to that to the denying of the Holocaust?

I am comparing the after-effects of both, since MacTag had made the point that the after-effects of Holocaust denial justify making it illegal: "Holocaust denial, if it is not checked, could lead to very undesirable political consequences, potentially affecting many. " If the objective of criminalization is to prevent "very undesirable political consequences", the cartoons should be as criminal as the denial. After all, their political consequences were at least as undesirable as any proven consequences of holocaust denial.

For the record, I believe that the conclusion is false because the premise is false: curbing the freedom of speech is no legitimate remedy against undesireable political consequences. The cartoonists ought to go free -- as should holocaust deniers.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

A bit of clarification...

I accept the argument that people are making that Holocaust denial is deeply offensive and I am sympathetic to the wish to stop anti-semitism.

The dissmisive brushing aside of Muslim offense simply to because it is not shared is making me angry.

No guilty, ebrown. I don't dismiss it.

Although it has been pointed out that the "spontaneous reaction" happened four months after the publication of the cartoons, and some UNpublished cartoons were deliberately used to whip up feeling.
But the feelings were/are genuine.

I'll come back to Thomas later, it's teatime.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:

I think uncontested is the key word here. The US does not allow holocaust denial, or other forms of extremist racism, go "uncontested". The question is whether the need to be legally enforced.

So what would happen if I stood in the middle of Harvard Square and screamed around that Holocaust was a lie? Or handed out flyers, or, dunno, spoke at some rally about it? Would I not get arrested in the States? Should I not get arrested? I sure hope they would take me in and take some action.
Are there laws in the U.S. forbidding propagation of Nazism and communism? How are they applied?

Nothing, nothing, no, no and no. With advance notice; you would even be given police protection at the tax-payers expense to hold such a rally. The result would be a plethora of people showing up to renounce the idiotic campaign. Here in the states; we don't require laws to forbid unpopular speech. The very fact that it's unpopular serves to defeat the speakers desire to convert. I would stand next to Ebrown in defense of Nazi-free-speech; all the while demonstrating against its inherent idiocy.

I can certainly understand the purpose of the Austrian/German laws and may very well have voted for same in 1945. Since I don't believe a Nazi-like party would stand a snowball's chance in hell in 2006; I believe it's high time to remove the outdated laws from the books and let free people renounce the idiocy on there own. The net result would be increased freedom for ALL of the citizens of both countries. Gone too, would be the easily understood (if not agreed with) feelings of a double standard that allows Mohammed-bashing, while condemning Holocaust denial.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Here in the states; we don't require laws to forbid unpopular speech.

Right on. So you would say that the "Free Speech Zones" are not in accordance with this bit here:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...] or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

?

0 Replies

Hmm, interesting. So why was Ku Klux Klan so secretive in its later years and/or today?

In any case, we do protect people from, say, skinheads marching through the town, handing out leaflets that say "Don't buy from the Jews" or "white Slovakia". And I am grateful for that. I have experienced, many times, attacks of these groups that often end up in bloodshed and at this point can only be curbed by effective prevention.

I understand the American perspective on freedom of speech, i respect it (after all America was built on ONE main philosophical tradition, that of liberalism, which is certainly not the case in Europe where many other traditions compete for their place in the sun). I respect it.

And I also respectfully disagree with it, and will continue to. Nothing said here convinced me otherwise. There is a world outside of America where different traditions, due to radically different foundations of the states, histories and philosophical traditions. "American" (the founding tradition of republican liberalism) is but one of many.

0 Replies

by the way, i think ACLU often IS ridiculous in its campaigns and actions. Not most of the times, of course, but often enough.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

And I also respectfully disagree with it, and will continue to. Nothing said here convinced me otherwise. There is a world outside of America where different traditions, due to radically different foundations of the states, histories and philosophical traditions. "American" (the founding tradition of republican liberalism) is but one of many.

ditto.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

Hmm, interesting. So why was Ku Klux Klan so secretive in its later years and/or today?

I don't know how secretive they are. They (and the other racist, Aryan nation type groups) are pretty much relegated to sparse marches and a few symbolic rallies. It's not that these groups aren't dangerous -- they are. It's just that they are dangerous because of their actions.

I saw a documentary the other night about a white power group. It kept me up all night. Perhaps it deserves its own thread.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

And I also respectfully disagree with it, and will continue to. Nothing said here convinced me otherwise. There is a world outside of America where different traditions, due to radically different foundations of the states, histories and philosophical traditions. "American" (the founding tradition of republican liberalism) is but one of many.

That's pretty much what I'm saying too. I don't agree with "your" way of doing things, but I accept that it works better for "you".

0 Replies

3 Years for denying Holocaust

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know