Holocaust Denial Criminalisation

Post Reply New Topic

The Holocaust happened....there’s no “denying” it.

I don’t believe Holocaust Denial should be criminalized. That would create a martyrdom for them.

^ ^ Good point.
It also makes research like re-checking WWII statistics tricky and possibly biased because if someone's numbers show lower they could be charged based on that. Jailing someone instead of re-checking their research is not a good strategy for science.

I just imagined criminalisation of Flat Earth. No. It's not how the law should work.

One should remember: even if it is found that "only" 1 million people died during the Holocaust, as opposed to at least 10 million, it still doesn't dilute the extreme depravity of the Holocaust and the people behind it.

I am only presenting the 1 million figure as a hypothetical. It's plainly obvious that at least 10 million people, of many ethnic groups, died during the Holocaust

I'm opposed to the idea on principle.

Despite that, I think it was probably a good idea in 1940s Germany. Denazification was essential and did that country a lot of good. But in other places - I'm particularly thinking of Austria, but also Hungary and Poland - banning Holocaust denial was their token bit of denazification and didn't stop the far-right remaining popular.

I don't really see the case for criminalisation in the UK, but I could be persuaded that it is effectively hate speech if presenting with a well-made case. I haven't watched the videos.

So what does the term "Holocaust" mean to you personally?
Could you break down what you think is meant by "The Holocaust" and where one becomes a "Holocaust Denier"?

As always, initially defining the context/parameters/definitions is the first step to *intelligent/rational* discussion so we know everyone is on the same "page", would you not agree?
I'd prefer to keep emotionalism out of this thread if it is possible (which I doubt will happen long term... )

Cheers, m8...

P.S. This is a learning scenario...a work in progress situation, well for me in any case...
If people could be tolerant of others inadvertently stepping on emotional toes/triggers it would be appreciated...

Germany, right after the war, yes...out law it. Maybe in Germany today its still a good idea to continue to compromise free speech by continuing to outlaw Holocaust denial.

But in the UK, and in the USA, I don't see the need to curb free speech that way. You have the right to spout idiotic nonsense: flat earthism, faith healing, whatever. So that too.

Once you start allowing the government to punish people for silly conspiracy theories then its only a matter of time they start punishing people for real conspiracy theories.

In essence, not only is it an attack on freedom of speech, it is more ominously an attack on freedom of thought if one is not allowed to consider what is said by (in this case) "revisionists"...

What I find more than a little odd is the seeming assumption that many people will be swayed by the alternative viewpoint.
Rather, would it not be reasonable to assume that rational individuals would objectively consider both arguments and not automatically default to the non official position?





By this I imaging you are saying revisionists are the flat earth people...

Personally I think this is a bad analogy, one which Deborah Lipstadt likes to use...

I.E.:
In Galileo's time it was the flat earthers who controlled the establishment...
Galileo was the revisionist...

A) Not quite. The establishment, and Galileo, agreed that the earth was spherical shaped. The issue was that the establishment imposed the dogma of geocentrism, and he challenged it with heliocentrism (his new idea was that the sun, and not the earth, is the center of the planetary system.

B)That's the point: that the establishment and the rebels swap roles occasionally. Every revisionist conspiracy theorist today invokes Galileo as their role model (either consciously, or unconsciously because he is so much part of our culture). "We are the brave martyrs rebelling against the big bad establishment who will break you on the rack like the Inguisition if you question the dogma that it's a bad idea to eat Tide detergent pods. They don't want you to eat Tide pods because eating Tide pods makes you harder for them to control you! So rise up! Chow down on Tide pods! You have nothing to loose but your yolks!" But casting yourself in the role of Galileo, or Columbus, or whatever lone thinker your invoke, doesn't make you right.

[Mod]

I feel like I should pre-emptively say that, while Holocaust denial might not be a crime worldwide, WrongPlanet strives to be an inclusive place and may ban users who post outright Holocaust denial content. (I believe there may also be issues complying with the law of some nations but I cannot say for sure)

As a general rule, anything you say must be reasonably plausible, and must not constitute hate speech in itself. It is acceptable to say that a certain historian of the Holocaust made a mistake regarding exact numbers, because that is plausible. It is not acceptable to discredit the notion of many millions dying, because that is extremely well established. We will aim to allow as much as possible on this subject.

It is not at all acceptable to say "the Holocaust was a hoax" or "the Jews exaggerated it" or anything to that effect. We will aim to allow as little as possible on this subject.

You are welcome to think these things, and you are welcome to say them elsewhere. You just can't say them here.

We shouldn't silence Holocaust deniers.

It's easier to just refute everything that they say. It's not that hard.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/how-to-refute-holocaust-denial

I can't remember which video or lecture it was but I do remember Noam Chomsky chiming in on the topic and arguing that illegality generally backfires because it ends up translating into free mass media advertisement and international notoriety. If one was going to make it illegal and do so sensibly they'd actually have to find some way of either keeping these cases from getting leaked from the media or force the media to not run any stories on it. Needless to say the first of those two options seems difficult to enforce and the second would set a worrying precedent.

What I do think is people should roundly condemn it, make the evidence abundantly easy to find, and make sure the populace is well educated on it. Technically both Fascism and Communism need just as much expose and bad air because we never want to go back to totalitarian or utopian anything - it's a mass murder machine and hell-like dystopia either way.

Well said...
This is a tricky subject...
Kudos for not putting it into the too hot to handle basket out right...

If I understand your position correctly, it is OK to objectively define both arguments?
In essence, present the facts rather than express an opinion? (Except if you agree with the official position).
It may be necessary to cite the origins of certain perspectives...if that is OK...

This thread is first and foremost a discussion regarding freedom of speech and thought...
The mere fact that we are having to discuss the parameters of this investigation speaks volumes in itself...
But, as I have stated above, it is difficult (dare I say impossible) to have a cohesive rational discussion if the context has not been defined...

Awaiting further guidance...

All the proof that is needed is presented in films which depicted many human bodies being deposited into crematoria, and piles and piles of human remains placed in piles. You can't fake this.

The Holocaust was the systematic killing, by the Nazis, of various types and "races" of people. Jews, gypsies, people with mental retardation, other mental disorders, and quite a few more not listed were included in those who were killed.

Yes, of course, there have been genocides which have matched, or even exceeded the Holocaust in scope.