| International Politics The forum for the discussion of non-US world politics. |
 | | 
22nd March 2009, 12:13 AM
|  | I call it Vera.
  
 | | Join Date: 23rd July 2007 Location: The Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 7,182
Blessings: 252,735
Reps: 949,908,873,596,354,560 (power: 949,908,873,596,366) | | Originally Posted by roflcopter101  From the European Union Directive for Combating Racism and Xenophobia:I believe that "publicly" in this section refers to announcing to the world "HEY GUYS, THE HOLOCAUST DIDN'T HAPPEN KTHXLOL!" rather than investigative work. I don't think it's a "shoot on sight" law.
I'm sure that the bureaucrats in the EU will take it as a "shoot in sight" law.
That's what bureaucrats do when you right them laws like this.
__________________
But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
-Bowers v. DeVito
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-George Orwell
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
-Barry Goldwater
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
-Sir Robert Peel |
22nd March 2009, 12:28 AM
| | Newbie
   
| | Join Date: 10th October 2008
Posts: 443
Blessings: 90,888 My Mood 
Reps: 3,494,425,949 (power: 3,494,429) | | | ditto what Panzerkampfwagen said. It's enforced liberally enough that people are afraid to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.
I don't question that the holocaust occurred at all, but I do question HOW it occurred. And this is not the only historical incident I question: I also question the Alamo. I don't think the Texans killed 8 times as many Mexicans for every defender. Doesn't change that it occurred, or that the end result is the same. What if Texas instituted a law forbidding the "trivialization of the sacrifice the Alamo defenders made"?
The fact that so much intimidation is in place to even question the holocaust, makes me question it all the more. What are they trying to hide? |
22nd March 2009, 12:48 AM
|  | Zero Gravitas
  
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 588
Blessings: 2,008,874
Reps: 1,244,074,964,743 (power: 1,244,074,968) | | Originally Posted by Col3_11n12 ditto what Panzerkampfwagen said. It's enforced liberally enough that people are afraid to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.
I am afraid I do not live in the EU, and cannot attest to whether this is true, so I concede the point.
Why do you question how the Holocaust occurred with the presence of all the evidence we have? I don't think the Texans killed 8 times as many Mexicans for every defender.
The Texans probably did not have a 8:1 K/D ratio, but most likely nearer to 3:1.
What is unbelievable is that Napoleon achieved a 15:1 K/D ratio in the Battle of Austerlitz without the aid of heavy fortifications that the Texans had.
Slightly less impressive is Hannibal's 13.33:1 ratio at the Battle of Zama, though this battle had even less documentation than Austerlitz.
Do you question the validity of those events or at least how they happened? Documents do exist that chronicle the events of these battles, and I suggest you read them if you truly seek such information. What if Texas instituted a law forbidding the "trivialization of the sacrifice the Alamo defenders made"?
I'm not sure anyone would care. It isn't implemented due to apathy, while the Holocaust involved (according to aforementioned evidence) targeted, precise mass murder of dissidents, minorities, and the disabled while performing war crimes and what modern society believes to be medical monstrosities. The fact that so much intimidation is in place to even question the holocaust, makes me question it all the more. What are they trying to hide?
I don't believe it's a thing they're trying to hide more than fear of anti-Jewish/xenophobic resentment from flaring up again. That's why they banned the Nazi Swastika in Germany everywhere but in Buddhist and Hindu temples. Arguably, you could say that they are trying to hide a secret map to Treasure Island that is present in the symbol. |
22nd March 2009, 02:49 AM
| | I call it Vera.
| | Join Date: 23rd July 2007 Location: The Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 7,182
Blessings: 252,735
Reps: 949,908,873,596,354,560 (power: 949,908,873,596,366) | | I am afraid I do not live in the EU, and cannot attest to whether this is true, so I concede the point.
Bureaucrats don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Generally, we need to write laws like they're going to be enforced by the likes of the ATF (see Rod's trading post, or the guy who got imprisoned for having a firearm that malfunctioned) or KGB thugs, not Andy Taylor or Barney Fife. The consequences if we don't are generally not that great for liberty. Why do you question how the Holocaust occurred with the presence of all the evidence we have?
There's enough evidence that reasonable people are certain that it occurred. In the US, we even have a museum devoted to the evidence. That being said, why do we need a law that bans denying that it occurred? What purpose does that law serve? Does it make people believe that the Holocaust occurred? Certainly not, that's what the mountains of evidence are for. It might make them not deny the Holocaust in public, then what? They go underground, and get the allure of forbidden fruit. It's another secret society. If we allow them to preach their views in public, they get marginalized and ignored, not imprisoned and turned into martyrs not just for the Nazi types but for people that believe in free speech as well. I'm not sure anyone would care. It isn't implemented due to apathy, while the Holocaust involved (according to aforementioned evidence) targeted, precise mass murder of dissidents, minorities, and the disabled while performing war crimes and what modern society believes to be medical monstrosities.
And sane, reasonable people know that it happened. We need to allow Holocaust deniers to expose themselves as marginal, nutty whack jobs. It's better that they protest in the street than that they plot in the smoke-filled rooms. I don't believe it's a thing they're trying to hide more than fear of anti-Jewish/xenophobic resentment from flaring up again. That's why they banned the Nazi Swastika in Germany everywhere but in Buddhist and Hindu temples. Arguably, you could say that they are trying to hide a secret map to Treasure Island that is present in the symbol.
The Swastika is just a symbol. Did they ban this symbol, this one, this one, this one, what about this one?
Or they could adopt a new symbol instead of one of the old ones. I can understand why Germany banned the swastika, it's not entirely rational, but I understand why.
__________________
But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
-Bowers v. DeVito
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-George Orwell
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
-Barry Goldwater
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
-Sir Robert Peel |
22nd March 2009, 03:25 AM
| | Zero Gravitas
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 588
Blessings: 2,008,874
Reps: 1,244,074,964,743 (power: 1,244,074,968) | | Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen Generally, we need to write laws like they're going to be enforced by the likes of the ATF (see Rod's trading post, or the guy who got imprisoned for having a firearm that malfunctioned) or KGB thugs, not Andy Taylor or Barney Fife.
Yes, and how will Germany or the EU do that within the boundaries of the law?
It has been nary 50 or so years since the events of WWII, and Germany and Europe have been affected by it more than the US has. I believe that the law is in place to make people forget about such events and partially to ensure that the formation of a large party devoted to fascist/anti-Semitic/etc. causes is made as difficult as possible until such beliefs are but outmoded ideas one may stumble upon in a textbook.
Again, since I do not live in the EU, I have no opinion to offer as to how the law is enforced in reality. The consequences if we don't are generally not that great for liberty.
Then libel laws must also be revised, correct? It might make them not deny the Holocaust in public, then what? They go underground, and get the allure of forbidden fruit. It's another secret society. If we allow them to preach their views in public, they get marginalized and ignored, not imprisoned and turned into martyrs not just for the Nazi types but for people that believe in free speech as well.
Again, I plead my previous argument: memories of fascist/anti-Semitic/etc. ideals are not easily forgotten.
In the US, this scenario of rejection will probably happen due to the mainstream belief that they are, as my father once eloquently said, "racist fascist [deleted] [deleted]". But in Germany, they may find more support due to, for example, the Nazi appeal to a nationalist, German identity, and the same in other parts of the EU.
If Holocaust denial or fascism is prohibited from being expressed publicly, then it becomes much more difficult to organize a party based on such principles.
And to preemptively answer one question I perceived to be pertinent, Holocaust denial is still viewed in some parts of Europe as a sign, if not a solid characteristic of anti-Semitism, as I seemed to see on my last trip to Spain. And sane, reasonable people know that it happened. We need to allow Holocaust deniers to expose themselves as marginal, nutty whack jobs. It's better that they protest in the street than that they plot in the smoke-filled rooms.
I offer the already-stated points for your consideration. The Swastika is just a symbol.
A symbol can be extremely powerful.
In times of old, dedicated troops were assigned to hold their country's flag, to serve as a unifying influence and lifter of morale among friendly troops, and as such the falling of the flag required that a fellow soldier drop his/her weapon and raise the flag back up to show that the Nation would persevere.
The Swastika is a reminder of the old Nazi regime, and thus an ideal, serving to unite those who feel similarly under a single, distinctive logo.
There are not many symbols that rival the Swastika in recognizability and possibly infamy.
A new symbol would require the reconstruction, a reorganization of people under a "new" cause. |
22nd March 2009, 12:20 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 10th October 2008
Posts: 443
Blessings: 90,888 My Mood
Reps: 3,494,425,949 (power: 3,494,429) | | | Did anyone happen to read what the Vatican priest who "denied" the Holocaust actually said, by the way? He never denied the Holocaust--he questioned HOW it happened. And what did people do? Splash his name on international headlines as "Holocaust-denying priest", consider filing charges against him, the Vatican makes him apologize and renounce all his statements.
And then you've got everybody wanting to invade Iran--for what? Because he held a Holocaust conference. Americans were invited to speak, but were forbidden to go through death threats and imprisonment for travelling to a "hostile country". Jews attended the conference, wearing yarmulkes and everything. These were Persian Jews, whose ancestors date back to Daniel and Esther. No one cares--let's just invade Iran. Ahmadinejad's obviously just a madman, and we should invade them. For holding a historical conference questioning the Holocaust. Yep, sounds like cause to start another war to me. |
22nd March 2009, 01:55 PM
| | Zero Gravitas
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 588
Blessings: 2,008,874
Reps: 1,244,074,964,743 (power: 1,244,074,968) | | He never denied the Holocaust--he questioned HOW it happened.
"Williamson has been charged with Holocaust denial. [39][44][49][43][50] He has denied the existence of gas chambers and has claimed that not six million but 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, [51][52] citing the Leuchter report, which had been thrown out as "ridiculous", "preposterous", "second-hand information" and Leuchter's opinion as of "no greater value than that of an ordinary tourist" by the judge in the trial in which it was attempted to present it as evidence". [53] Williamson has also praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. "
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadin..._anti-Semitism
Is questioning the amount of people killed the denial of how it happened or what actually happened? Originally Posted by Col3_11n12 And then you've got everybody wanting to invade Iran--for what? Because he held a Holocaust conference.
That is not the main reason that some people want an invasion. There is also the issue of nuclear weapons programs. The people who want to invade North Korea do not believe so because Kim Jong Il is anti-Semitic. |
22nd March 2009, 02:32 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 10th October 2008
Posts: 443
Blessings: 90,888 My Mood
Reps: 3,494,425,949 (power: 3,494,429) | | Is questioning the amount of people killed the denial of how it happened or what actually happened?
No answer needed. Thank you for proving my point. |
22nd March 2009, 02:58 PM
|  | Veteran
   
| | Join Date: 5th July 2005 Location: Pohjola
Posts: 3,250
Blessings: 1,302,209
Reps: 45,454,215,510,743,368 (power: 45,454,215,510,753) | | Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986 Definitions 1. In this Law, "crime against the Jewish people" and "crime against humanity" have the same respective meanings as in the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law, 5710-1950[1].
Prohibition of Denial of Holocaust 2. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
Prohibition of publication of expression for sympathy for Nazi crimes 3. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement expressing praise or sympathy for or identification with acts done in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
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.
Filing of charge 5. An indictment for offences under this Law shall only be filed by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.
The outrage, the outrage! 
__________________
One achieves little honour if one invades another country, which has done us no harm, with force and injustice, if one rapes and burns, kills and pillages those who only wished to live in peace. It would do us greater honour if our forefathers had always been peaceful and meek, if they had been content with all the things God had given them, instead of robbing and raping others. -- Olaus Petri
I am resolving now never to hold rancor, however justified it might be, toward a group of people, whatever their race, religion, conviction, prejudices, errors. -- Irčne Némirovsky
Cannons and fire-arms are cruel and damnable machines; I believe them to have been the direct suggestion of the Devil. If Adam had seen in a vision the horrible instruments his children were to invent, he would have died of grief. -- Martin Luther |
22nd March 2009, 02:58 PM
| | Zero Gravitas
| | Join Date: 16th December 2008 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 588
Blessings: 2,008,874
Reps: 1,244,074,964,743 (power: 1,244,074,968) | | Originally Posted by Col3_11n12 No answer needed. Thank you for proving my point.
Demographics place the amount of people killed near to 6 million, and questioning how it happened would be questioning the amount of people killed by starvation, how many by gassing, etc.
The priest, by questioning the amount of people killed, was not questioning how, but what actually happened, which is in my opinion real Holocaust denial. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
