Holocaust Denial Law

[DeletedUser]

I assume that the law would make it punishable to claim the Holocaust never happened, but would the law also punish me if I claimed that only three million jews were killed rather than six million?

Like all laws the devil is in the detail, but yes, that is my understanding too. It varies from country to country (with France, Austria and Germany having the most oppressive laws on paper, I believe), and I'm not sure how widely it is prosecuted. Germany seems to be the most backward about it all (based on the number of times I've read about idiots being taken to court by other idiots in the British press), but that may just be down to size and the Brits' fondness for ridiculing our old enemy. The famous salute is also forbidden.

Estimates are all that we have, but what purpose would any government have of forging results?

To make it look like they were getting the job done. Governments and their employees do exaggerate occasionally.

I think the lessons of the holocaust are less about what happened over there back then, but about what could happen here now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your question is quite stupid. The Nazis were to only government there, if they didn't keep exact records then it will be impossible to get the numbers. Estimates are all that we have, but what purpose would any government have of forging results?

Just the worst, most detestable sort of head in the sand troll, really. What purpose ? Errr cause for creation of Israel ? Sympathy for Israel in international crisis matters ? Guilt syndrome because those nations did nothing when the Germans cooked the Jews in ovens ? In case of the Germans, guilt syndrome because their countrymen cooked the Jews in ovens ?

Do you honestly believe governments don't sometimes doctor or exaggerate statistics ? Whether its to further an agenda or to avoid having to do painstaking research ?


You're reflecting the narrow-minded. live under a rock mentality that leads to such legislation being passed.

My question was very simple, find the source of such numbers (such as the records and eyewitness accounts Zard mentioned), scan them or find an online digital copy of them, and link it here to establish that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.

No one here has said that number was false, people have said that number doesn't seem to be verified well.

I can "estimate" 6 million Bangalis died in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War if I wanted to pull a number out of thin air and if people would accept it without question. However the civilian casualties that can be accounted for is bit closer to 3.1 mill, hence thats the number we use when citing the genocide. Being Bangladeshi myself.

 

[DeletedUser]

What purpose ? Errr cause for creation of Israel ? Sympathy for Israel in international crisis matters ? Guilt syndrome because those nations did nothing when the Germans cooked the Jews in ovens ? In case of the Germans, guilt syndrome because their countrymen cooked the Jews in ovens ?

Do the statistics matter? Isn't it bad enough that there's chronic racial hatred towards a specific group to justify them wanting sanctuary, would it be aright if the statistics only showed 1 million, would it be fine if it was 100,00, 1,000 or just 100?

Europe has a lot to answer for in terms of generations of abuse, the purpose of the laws is to show some measure of sympathy, some measure of respect, and while it's fine that on the internet you can act edgy and be flippant about the whole issue if that's how our society sees the Holocaust, then that's really wrong. Israel isn't above reproach in it's actions in the middle east, but support for a Jewish State shouldn't be rooted in whether you think they've suffered enough to deserve it, it should be based on their actions, digging into history is fine, but holocaust legislation is there to provide some respect, some basic decency and compassion. You can act outraged all you want that you're being limited in your exploration of an issue, but this is an issue of momentous sensitivity, so it'd be nice if you could show some.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do the statistics matter? Isn't it bad enough that there's chronic racial hatred towards a specific group to justify them wanting sanctuary, would it be aright if the statistics only showed 1 million, would it be fine if it was 100,00, 1,000 or just 100?

Europe has a lot to answer for in terms of generations of abuse, the purpose of the laws is to show some measure of sympathy, some measure of respect, and while it's fine that on the internet you can act edgy and be flippant about the whole issue if that's how our society sees the Holocaust, then that's really wrong. Israel isn't above reproach in it's actions in the middle east, but support for a Jewish State shouldn't be rooted in whether you think they've suffered enough to deserve it, it should be based on their actions, digging into history is fine, but holocaust legislation is there to provide some respect, some basic decency and compassion. You can act outraged all you want that you're being limited in your exploration of an issue, but this is an issue of momentous sensitivity, so it'd be nice if you could show some.

Holocaust legislation is a double standard, just like advocating freedom and democracy while turning a blind eye to the Holocaust was a double standard, and the Catholic Church's no interference policy in the Holocaust was a double standard.

The Holocaust legislation has nothing to do with decency or compassion for the Jewish people, who face it haven't necessarily been more maligned than the Gypsies or the blacks in Europe, but rather to cover for Europe's own guilt syndrome, so their crimes and inactions do not get talked about.

Whatever your views are, if you really think that in reality when Atlee and Truman were sanctioning a state for the Jews in the middle east immediately after WWII, they weren't primarily thinking of the holocaust and its reported casualty numbers, then you are out of touch with documented history (they frequently referred to it in speeches and letters on the issue).

I do agree with you that Europe in general does have a lot of historical crimes to answer for, but their treatment of Jews is very far from being the only thing in that list, it may not even be the most grievous thing in that list.

All suffering in this manner is wrong, but the suffering of the Jews should not be given hallowed status over the suffering of others. You don't see any laws preventing the questioning the number of civilian casualties caused by Nato armed forces in Iraq do you ?

On a completely unrelated note, you've made a big assumption on my exploration of the issue, don't do that.

 

[DeletedUser]

Holocaust legislation is a double standard, just like advocating freedom and democracy while turning a blind eye to the Holocaust was a double standard, and the Catholic Church's no interference policy in the Holocaust was a double standard.

The Holocaust legislation has nothing to do with decency or compassion for the Jewish people, who face it haven't necessarily been more maligned than the Gypsies or the blacks in Europe, but rather to cover for Europe's own guilt syndrome, so their crimes and inactions do not get talked about.

Whatever your views are, if you really think that in reality when Atlee and Truman were sanctioning a state for the Jews in the middle east immediately after WWII, they weren't primarily thinking of the holocaust and its reported casualty numbers, then you are out of touch with documented history (they frequently referred to it in speeches and letters on the issue).

I do agree with you that Europe in general does have a lot of historical crimes to answer for, but their treatment of Jews is very far from being the only thing in that list, it may not even be the most grievous thing in that list.

All suffering in this manner is wrong, but the suffering of the Jews should not be given hallowed status over the suffering of others. You don't see any laws preventing the questioning the number of civilian casualties caused by Nato armed forces in Iraq do you ?

On a completely unrelated note, you've made a big assumption on my exploration of the issue, don't do that.

Pfft. Maybe I misread the phrase "cooked the Jews in ovens" but that doesn't seem to be a very tactful way of discussing this issue.

I never said it was the biggest issue, or that it was the only one that mattered. The fact is that if you question civilian causalities by walking up to families of victims and referring to the events as "mucking around with water" as opposed to waterboarding you'd likely get a well deserved slap, and be generally shunned.

Whatever you feel about guilt syndrome, and trying to cover up the past, if you visit Germany, or any of the locations involved you can see that the issue isn't being covered up to try hide "guilt", it's out in the open. The legislation is against Holocaust Denial, not teaching about the Holocaust.

Holocaust Denial is not only massively insensitive, but it's done mostly out of spite, or racial hatred. I can't see a reason why i'd want Holocaust Denial in any society I live in, just like I wouldn't want incitement to racial hatred in any society I live in. Freedom's aren't absolute, they depend on you acting as a responsible member of society. If you steal, you lose your right to walk around. If you want to abuse speech to be offensive and incite hatred, I don't have a problem with you losing your right to free speech.

 

[DeletedUser]

Pfft. Maybe I misread the phrase "cooked the Jews in ovens" but that doesn't seem to be a very tactful way of discussing this issue.

I never said it was the biggest issue, or that it was the only one that mattered. The fact is that if you question civilian causalities by walking up to families of victims and referring to the events as "mucking around with water" as opposed to waterboarding you'd likely get a well deserved slap, and be generally shunned.

Whatever you feel about guilt syndrome, and trying to cover up the past, if you visit Germany, or any of the locations involved you can see that the issue isn't being covered up to try hide "guilt", it's out in the open. The legislation is against Holocaust Denial, not teaching about the Holocaust.

Holocaust Denial is not only massively insensitive, but it's done mostly out of spite, or racial hatred. I can't see a reason why i'd want Holocaust Denial in any society I live in, just like I wouldn't want incitement to racial hatred in any society I live in. Freedom's aren't absolute, they depend on you acting as a responsible member of society. If you steal, you lose your right to walk around. If you want to abuse speech to be offensive and incite hatred, I don't have a problem with you losing your right to free speech.

See, I'm not obligated to be tactful when referring to what the Germans did to Jews back then just like I'm not obligated to be sensitive towards families of Holocaust victims although its good and decent if I am. However in a democratic and free society, the legal code and the government is obligated to ensure my freedom of speech because that is one of the tenets upon which a free and democratic society is based.

You think that Holocaust Denial mostly comes from racial hatred or spite and thats the line the legislators of such ridiculous laws parrot all the time. Truth is most Holocaust Denial isn't denial of the events, but rather like me, questioning (not even denying) of the scope of the Holocaust and if the numbers are as high as people say it is. Therefore its more caused by people simply not accepting the official story (or the whole of it) without documentation.

Stealing effects people materially - and such it is grounds to take away their freedom of movement, racially hateful speech by itself (and there was none of it at all in this thread) does not, it effects people psychologically. Therefore it is not grounds to take away someone's freedom of speech in any free society.
And people who question the scope of the Holoaust aren't hateful towards Jews, they're just trying to establish truth from fiction and exaggeration.

Come back when you have a point to make.

 

[DeletedUser]

Pervie has a point. Laws should not exist that deny the existence of free speech, regardless of the risk in allowing the speech to exist.

I do ask that we try to be slightly more politically correct. While you may not need to be tactful, when discussing the deaths of people, using the phrase "cooked" is slightly distasteful. I may have a slight bias to this, as I'm Jewish, however, I had to really hold myself back to not completely flip out about that. I have relatives that died in the Holocaust and I don't really enjoy people coining terms like that.
I doubt you would enjoy me saying that the Bangladesh women during the 1971 war were shafted as opposed to raped.

I feel that the laws against Holocaust denial are quite unnecessary. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. People would clamor and call it ridiculous if the US made it a crime to deny that the US discriminated against Native Americans. In a modern democratic society, you cannot limit freedoms like this. If the government really cares about the issue that much, they can fund education in the subject and everyone who denies the common belief will be ignored as a ignoramus.

If someone wants to question how I came about a number, thats fine. They shouldn't be punished for curiosity. Instead, I should show them my argument and they will show me theirs. If I can't convince them, so be it.

Similarly, I can say that I can't be for certain if 3.1 million Bangladesh civilians died in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. For what I've seen, that estimate is based off of quote from Yahya Khan said to reporter Robert Payne. There's also a report that says that only 300,000 died. Which should I believe?

I agree with Pervie that I deserve the freedom to be able to question that event. I may be deemed an ignoramus by the vast community who already accepts the given information as factual, but I deserve the right to be allowed to question the event without punishment.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Hall (Explaining Voltaire)

 

[DeletedUser]

Germans cooked the Jews in ovens

Is it bad that I laughed at this? and had some funny thoughts on it

I work in a restaurant.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption. Continue the debate.

 

[DeletedUser]

Is it bad that I laughed at this? and had some funny thoughts on it

I work in a restaurant.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption. Continue the debate.

Yes it's bad and you should be arrested . :icon_twisted:


I will come back and add a more serious comment later

<3

 

[DeletedUser]

I doubt you would enjoy me saying that the Bangladesh women during the 1971 war were shafted as opposed to raped.

Would not offend me very much, the words one uses to describe the events have no bearing on what happened or for seeking justice for what happened. Being sensitive about them just detracts from the real issue of acquiring reparation and justice for those events.

Similarly, I can say that I can't be for certain if 3.1 million Bangladesh civilians died in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. For what I've seen, that estimate is based off of quote from Yahya Khan said to reporter Robert Payne. There's also a report that says that only 300,000 died. Which should I believe?

Nah the figure of 3.1 million was reached in 1972/1973 UN General Assembly sessions after considerable groundwork.
Yahya Khan was the military dictator of Pakistan during the war, nothing he says about the war, which in addition to committing atrocities, his country also lost, is usually taken at face value internationally, the Pakistanis have always tried to downplay the number.

But your main point of question the numbers of '71 is valid and I wouldn't hold it against anyone for doing so.

 

[DeletedUser]

And people who question the scope of the Holoaust aren't hateful towards Jews, they're just trying to establish truth from fiction and exaggeration.

Come back when you have a point to make.

Indecent exposure is banned because it's morally offensive to the majority of society. The point about rights is a simple one, some things are deemed to be undermining the moral fabric of society are therefore banned.

A quote from the specific law in Israel, which i'm sure we can all accept is probably one of the strcitist countries on this:
"Permitted publication 4. The publication of a correct and fair report of a publication prohibited by this Law shall not be regarded as an offence thereunder so long as it is not made with intent to express sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity."

I made the key bits clear. Provided that a report is:

1. Fair, i.e. not blatantly trying to absolve the Nazi's of any guilt.
2. Politically sensitive, i.e. not trying to support the ideas of the Nazi's

Then it is "permitted". Holocaust denial isn't what you think it is, a blanket ban on looking at the Holocaust, it's a way of making people show some respect.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok germans killed in their nazi wars over 9 mil ppl ,in camps ,from 1950 to 1990 soviet russia killed 6 times that number ,americans invaded vietnam and coreea on economic bases and killed all those millions of ppl,if we have tagged all the nazi leaders as mass murderers ,my question is simple :when we will judge what the russians have done ,and more importantly when will us take blame for anything they are doing
one ex.is simple in the case of usa,they invaded iraq bec they said iraq had biological and nucelar weapons and they proved that with photos from satellite,still 7 years after the invasion nobody has found those weapons and americans are ''helping'' out a country very rich in oil

 

[DeletedUser]

ok germans killed in their nazi wars over 9 mil ppl ,in camps ,from 1950 to 1990 soviet russia killed 6 times that number ,americans invaded vietnam and coreea on economic bases and killed all those millions of ppl,if we have tagged all the nazi leaders as mass murderers ,my question is simple :when we will judge what the russians have done ,and more importantly when will us take blame for anything they are doing
one ex.is simple in the case of usa,they invaded iraq bec they said iraq had biological and nucelar weapons and they proved that with photos from satellite,still 7 years after the invasion nobody has found those weapons and americans are ''helping'' out a country very rich in oil

Aren't you judging them?

Spoiler: Lisa

Yes it's bad and you should be arrested . :icon_twisted:


I will come back and add a more serious comment later

<3

Hi.

Raw? Black and blue? Rare? Medium rare? Medium? Medium well? Well done? Overcooked?

:icon_twisted:

<3

Right.:icon_rolleyes:

:icon_twisted:

<3

<3

 

[DeletedUser]

Indecent exposure is banned because it's morally offensive to the majority of society. The point about rights is a simple one, some things are deemed to be undermining the moral fabric of society are therefore banned.

A quote from the specific law in Israel, which i'm sure we can all accept is probably one of the strcitist countries on this:
"Permitted publication 4. The publication of a correct and fair report of a publication prohibited by this Law shall not be regarded as an offence thereunder so long as it is not made with intent to express sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity."

I made the key bits clear. Provided that a report is:

1. Fair, i.e. not blatantly trying to absolve the Nazi's of any guilt.
2. Politically sensitive, i.e. not trying to support the ideas of the Nazi's

Then it is "permitted". Holocaust denial isn't what you think it is, a blanket ban on looking at the Holocaust, it's a way of making people show some respect.

I understand your reasoning for this - though I do not personally agree with it - and what your saying but regarding these laws, who differentiates whether the article or comment is expressing identification with the Nazis ? That looks like something which is heavily dependent on individual perception and interpretation, i.e. very easily abused. And we have seen such laws abused very often.

And if it is a query or questioning numbers, then who decides if it is fair or correct ?

This amount of vagueness is quite scary and to me its just a pretext for the government to selectively apply punishment.

 

[DeletedUser]

This amount of vagueness is quite scary and to me its just a pretext for the government to selectively apply punishment.

Most western democracies (i.e. where this law applies) believe in independent judiciaries and and trial by jury. Essentially the people who'll decide your motives will be your peers, a group of (hopefully) unbiased opinions. I doubt there's much scope for conspiracy theories here, aside from the normal ones that go alongside Israel and a "zionist regime". Most law isn't an absolute, it's not a case of right or wrong their are varying degrees to everything, such as premiditated murder compared with manslaugther. We trust the judiciary to make the call about what your motives are intelligently, so this is really no different.