EU to outlaw Holocaust denial
The EU plans to make denying the Holocaust a criminal offence throughout Europe.
While well-intentioned, this proposal is regrettable. The way to deal with holocaust deniers is to laugh, mock, expose, and ridicule them. But banning them will just add to their paranoid theories.
I can understand with sympathy why Austria and Germany especially felt the needs for such laws after WWII. But today such laws are unnecessary, and most of all the special circumstances of Germany and Austria do not apply to all of Europe.
We see what a precedent this can create, with the Poles wanting denial of Stalinist crimes to also be an offence.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: International Politics
April 20th, 2007 at 7:53 am
This is an area where one must tread very very carefully.
1) We do not know how many ‘concentration camps’ there were. And how do you define a ‘concentration camp’?
2) We do not know how many died in these camps. We have estimates only.
3) We do not know the ethnic breakdown of these poor souls.
4) We do not know the political breakdown.
5) We do not know how many were intentionally murdered and how many died of neglect.
As I understand it, those murdered included Poles, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, political opponents, escaped POW’s and communists and that a total of 20 million died.
I understand that fewer Gypsies were murdered than Jews, but the proportion of Gypsies to the total Gypsy population was much higher than the Jews.
As an ex-auditor for the auditors-general of NZ and Australia’s Northern Territory I am very distrustful of estimates. As we say in the business ‘in God we trust, everyone else gets audited’.
6) I find it odd that the open desire of the Palestinians to drive Israel into the sea (a sentiment throughout the Islamic world as well as common in the West) is the subject of denial.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I think the fact that the EU ignored Polish and Baltic states wishes to include Stalinist purges to be one of the worst things that came out of this decision.
As far as I’m concerned there is no difference between Hitlers genocides and Stalins purges. The Polish have every right to be upset about this.
But yes, the freedom of speech issue is of concern, but decisions like this is so typical of the EU!
April 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
I think you’re being over-generous calling it well-intentioned – the fucks coming up with this bullshit are more of a threat to the freedoms of the West than Osama Bin Laden could dream of. A definition of freedom of speech often attributed to Voltaire is “I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” – these guys are more like “I may disapprove of what you say, in which case you must remain silent.” They put me in mind of the teachers in “Hyperactive Child” by the Dead Kennedys, shouting “Now you will obey!”
April 20th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I’ve got no arguements with the law whatsoever, if anything it’s astounding it’s taken so long.
Given the existance of right wingers & nazi sympathisers who follow holocaust denial & racial purity bollocks who’s numbers are growing, I don’t see a rational arguement to suggest it could flow onto Stalinist denial, is just not a valid arguement.
Not to mention it nicely places any World Leader stupid enough to espouse such theories in very direct conflict with the EU, which is no bad thing.
Your comparison is a perfect example of the tactic whereby you take a valid case & try to influence it’s rationality by making an extreme & unrealistic comparison.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I make no distinction between what Hitler did in WW2 and what Stalin did to Eastern and Central Europe and find it abhorrent that the purges by Stalin are to be ignored by the EU.
I’m not surprised, especially coming from the EU but the hypocrisy is ridiculous.
As for the freedom of speech issue.. it just shows how out of touch the European Government really is.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am
David I think you’ve overlooked an important qualifier –
“They will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.”
“when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities”
It’s not just denial, it’s when that denial has other objectives – which it usuallly does. This will be used against people who use Holocaust denial as a means of inciting hatred but get away with it present.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Agreed, well intentioned but unnecessary. If anything it abbrogates the responsibility of the masses to point, laugh and reject extreme and baseless views.
Clint – valid point re Stalin. I always go by the old adage that once someone has killed their first million trying to decide who was worst is a pointless exercise.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
“The latest draft, seen by the Financial Times, will make it mandatory for all Union member states to punish public incitement “to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”
We need that here so Helen and her crew can finally be put away for good.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Oops it didn’t post the first time so I reposted it a little different, in case it looked unusual for the similar looking posts
April 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Pales in comparison to most of the world’s denial about what is currently happening in North Korea.
FTA with North Korea’s enablers China is our very own form of holocaust denial.
“A 42-year-old woman from Haeju said she was deported from China in December 2003 and served 18 months in a North Korean labor camp. “Every day, I saw someone dying. We were given a fistful of powdered corn stalk, three times a day, and people had trouble digesting it. Many people died after having diarrhea for a week,” she said. “They left patients in the hallway outside toilets. So many people died, they wrapped bodies in plastic sheets and buried them in a mountain”
April 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Remember – The Victor always writes History.
We have no way of knowing what the truth is. In an open society it is healthy to question for clarifying purposes – those who would have it any other way risk being labelled as someone with something to hide
April 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Remember – The Victor always writes History.
We have no way of knowing what the truth is. In an open society it is healthy to question for clarifying purposes – those who would have it any other way risk being labelled as someone with something to hide
April 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Davec’s
Galactic stupid statement
“Remember – The Victor always writes History.
We have no way of knowing what the truth is”
There are 100,000′s of eye witnesses to the process and aftermath, thousands of pictures and movies. Legal testimony, buildings of mass extermination still standing etc and that’s the best you can come up with?
What shallow drivel you spout forth, what would qualify as proof in our expert opinion?
April 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The irony of calling me dopey and being so stupid you post in the wrong thread is amusing.
Thank you for playing. Bzzzt. Next contestant.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Welcome aboard Mr Sleep – you are going to provide us with so much good, wholesome family entertainment … something that’s been lacking around here since Cadmus went AWOL.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
There goes Ahmadinejad’s ski trip to the Swiss Alps.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I read in a Japanese newspaper that the EU is also looking to ban bull-fighting. Spanish interests are obviously unhappy with the suggestion, declaring that the tradition is a European “cultural asset”, and they think they can get support from Portugal and France to defeat the move.
This EU thing is scaring me, to be honest.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I like that David Irving can say what he does publicly, it makes it easier to track him and pick him off in crowd.
OUT in a crowd, pick him out in crowd is of course what I meant to say.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I don’t think the issue of free speech should have anything to do with this. People have been known to sue for defamation of character – publicly espousing blatent lies does not have to be tolerated by society. The Holocaust is historical fact, denying it defames all those who suffered and died.
It may be that this isn’t be the best way to combat the rise in popularity of this “theory”, but that discussion should be held on it’s own terms, and not be subject to oversimplified idealisms.
If people are worried that this approach may lead towards a genuine attack on free speech, you may have to hang onto that feeling for some time, because this is a long way away from that.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Holocaust denial is a rumor started by islamics,Ahmadinejad is a perfect example.
As we know islam hates Jewish and all others,lets fight these brainwashed muslims to the end.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
DPF
You have been told off by a 15 year old. Gee, you must be so scared of being right wing when such a worldly person has shredded your entire world view in one easy post.
But back on thread: I don’t mind having gay people next door, mum and dad said it’s OK so I’m now going to claim it’s my opinion and all you right wing twits are wrong ! Dopey in fact !
April 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The European Union, if they pass this legal proposal ostensibly to criminalise the denial of the Holocaust but also encompassing those blanket measures to punish public incitement ‘to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, is in effect closing the door to freedom of expression all in the name of what they see as “human rights”.
Any proposed law pitched against free expression of religious beliefs, which can be interpreted by some and not by others to be incitement to religious hatred, would prohibit essential debate and criminalise ideas. Once ideas are criminalised we are all effectively stuffed and become subservient to a system of totalitarianism.
Because we have no control over which race we are born into we limit freedom of speech where it is abused to incite racial hatred or violence. Attacking people on account of their race is to attack what they are and is considered uncivilised. Criminalising hatred of religion though is quite another matter since we do have a choice into which faith, or not, we can take up and criticising people on account of their religion is to criticise what they think and is an integral part of civilised and liberal discourse. Religion arouses strong passionate ideas, which routinely include dislike of other faiths, which might be quite understandable, if such faiths threaten others.
It is a thoroughly bad, dangerous proposal and should have no place in any liberal society.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Of course…
What sort of proscribed denial is up next?
Not AGW denial …surely?
Not “socialism is a failed economic system” denial….surely?
NZ is a fertile ground for compulsory denial…there’s something in the water.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Of course…
What sort of proscribed denial is up next?
Not AGW denial …surely?
Not “socialism is a failed economic system” denial….surely?
NZ is a fertile ground for compulsory denial…there’s something in the water.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Do not forget that denying climate change is now almost a crime here in New Zealand.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Dont’t worry DPF fight on you rebel radical.
James Sleep represents the typical socialist minority who resort to pathetic personal attacks because thier policies are obviously so juvenile.
We need helaing within eastern europe. but people’s freedom must be taken into account.
James! Stay on topic and dont get personal.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Dont’t worry DPF fight on you rebel radical.
James Sleep represents the typical socialist minority who resort to pathetic personal attacks because thier policies are obviously so juvenile.
We need helaing within eastern europe. but people’s freedom must be taken into account.
James! Stay on topic and dont get personal.