Holocaust Denial gagging policies...

[Boerseun]

So, I've never doubted the Holocaust where 6 million Jews were wiped off the face of the Earth. It was part and parcel of our history curriculum in school, and I assume it still is. Movies like Schindler's List and Shoah keep the memories alive.

 

But of late, and seemingly since the end of WW2, there's been a fringe group of holocaust deniers. I suppose the interwebs have merely given them a louder voice to disseminate their opinion on the matter. So I ventured off into the wild wild web to do some research as to how they defend their position. And I came to some interesting findings...

 

NOTE - I'm not taking sides in this thread; this thread does not intend to establish the truth of either side. I'm not about to prove the holocaust or prove the denialists' stance. This thread is about the policy of gagging those denialists that seem to be in vogue amongst western governments.

 

So, in any case, governments of seemingly liberal western democracies have been passing laws that make the denial of the Jewish holocaust a crime, punishable by terms in jail of up to ten years. Quite a few "revisionist" historians have been so sentenced. And that is what I don't get.

 

Let's say that somebody makes a claim that the sun revolves around the Earth. That claim is ludicrous and devoid of any evidence towards it. You don't have to be in agreement with somebody making such a foolish claim - the evidence speaks for itself. Yet, when some nutcase historian gets up on his soapbox and says that the holocaust never took place, we throw him in jail. If the holocaust happened (I'm not intending to take sides in this thread) then the evidence should speak for itself, and the person making that claim would be proven wrong. Why is legislation necessary to protect the holocaust take on history? Why not allow open debate and prove the denialists wrong? What is there to lose?

 

Whether I agree or disagree with the pro- or anti-holocaust lobbies, is besides the point. My point is that passing laws to gag the one side of the debate/discussion/*****-fight is suspicious to the n'th degree, and is in total denial of their rights to Freedom of Speech.

 

Let's see, for a moment:

 

Scenario A: The Holocaust is true.

The creation of the state of Israel is morally defensible, and the world as it looks today is all good, fine and dandy. There would be no point in gagging the deniers, because the evidence speaks for itself.

Scenario B: The Holocaust is a fabrication.

The creation of the state of Israel is not morally defensible, and the Jews in Palestine are nothing more than colonialists with very little claim to the land. International politics as it looks today needs some serious re-configuration, with very little benefit to the Jews. The deniers need to be gagged, because the evidence does not support the holocaust.

 

All apologies if this post seem to be lowering itself into conspiracy-theory territory, but I can't see how making holocaust denial a criminal offence makes sense in any way other than in Scenario B - or maybe legislators merely being overzealous. Whatever the case may be, passing holocaust gagging legislation is not helping the pro-holocaust lobby at all.

 

Like the man said, the country willing to sacrifice a little freedom to gain a little security deserves neither. And I don't have to agree with the person saying that the holocaust is a big fat hoax, but I can't conceive denying him his right to say so, however distasteful what he has to say might be.

 

Why do we pass legislation criminalizing holocaust-denial, but we don't throw people reporting UFO sightings into jail? Where's the consistency? Like I said, passing legislation such as this only plays into the denialists' hand.

 

Thoughts?

[GAHD]

My thoughts mirror yours in ways B.

 

My thoughts go a little further in that I've come to the conclusion the "holocaust" is very much exaggerated. I don't mean that the horrors of it are exaggerated, I mean that the specific "Jewish only" take on it is exaggerated.

 

Propaganda has become history.

[Galapagos]

My girlfriend's grandfather is an Austrian immigrant who spent time in a concentration camp. I have no reason to doubt him and I'm near certain he would be highly offended if I asked him if he was sure it really happened.

 

Scenario A: The Holocaust is true.

The creation of the state of Israel is morally defensible, and the world as it looks today is all good, fine and dandy. There would be no point in gagging the deniers, because the evidence speaks for itself.

Scenario B: The Holocaust is a fabrication.

The creation of the state of Israel is not morally defensible, and the Jews in Palestine are nothing more than colonialists with very little claim to the land. International politics as it looks today needs some serious re-configuration, with very little benefit to the Jews. The deniers need to be gagged, because the evidence does not support the holocaust.

 

I admittedly am not the best student of world history, but isn't Israel an abomination of colonialism either way? The land in Palestein was occupied by Palestinians, and it was not rightly the property of Europeans to give away to the Jews. It seems to me an incredibly shortsighted decision on the part of the world powers, and one that may have been partly motivated by fantastic religious prophecy. Whether or not the holocaust actually happened has little to do with whether or not it was appropriate to move an entire population of people to a country that was occupied by a completely different ethnic group for many generations.

[TheBigDog]

Jewish culture is largely built upon remembering the past. Not just the Holocaust, but ancient enslavement and persecutions that have happened throughout history. It is in the holidays, the elementary education, and in the religious dogma to remember the hard times in the past and to guard against them happening again. That cultural tendency is part of why society as a whole is more familiar with the Jewish holocaust victims than they are with other groups who were also on the list for extermination. It is also part of why Stalin is not remembered as a more reprehensible figure than Hitler. Or Mao. Both of who slaughtered far more helpless unarmed people for political purposes than Hitler did during the Holocaust.

 

I think that the holocaust denial crimes come from a sense of guilt among those who must live in the shadow of that legacy. It runs contrary to freedom of speech but shows a commitment on the part of those countries to delegitimize any attempts to deny that it ever happened.

 

One of the challenges is that the propaganda that led to the Holocaust is very similar to the arguments that deny its happening. History is not like sciences that can always be tested. You have to trust those who interpret the recording of facts if you do not have access to the facts yourself. It is not difficult to forget, to create, to change, to do whatever to history. And in doing so subtly influence a population into behaviors that they would not otherwise condone. Freedom of information helps, but a totalitarian state still has an incredible ability to shape an image in otherwise unknowing minds.

 

I do not believe that denying the Holocaust should be a crime that merits prison time. But in the process of healing and demonstrating that history will not be allowed to repeat such laws may be prudent from time to time.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

Most of the countries that have laws against Holocaust denial are either countries aligned with Germany in WWII (including Germany itself) or countries occupied by Germany with at least some record of Nazi sympathizers (e.g. Vichy France). As such, I'd say they had some excuse to do so, and many have gone for broader "genocide denial" as the real crime, to not show favoritism to the Jews (we wouldn't stand for that!).

 

I think GAHD's reference to the Holocaust being exclusively about the Jews is a Red Herring if not outright unsupportable troll-bait. No Jew denies that millions of others died, but it's not very difficult to support the proposition that the Jews were indeed the group that had the most attention of the Nazi authorities, and the largest single targeted group. Gypsies, gays, mentally disabled, and endless other undesirables were rounded up in large numbers, but were for the most part fewer in number, and more importantly were portrayed as merely passively dangerous to Aryan purity, as opposed to the Jews who were actively involved in plots against the state. The same level of invective was also aimed at "Communists" but of course all Communists were Jews, and all Jews were Communists.

 

The only "group" that died in numbers even approaching the Jews were the Russians who were not captured and sent to concentration camps in large numbers, there were simply starved by siege, bombed or run over by tanks in the millions. This may not be publicized much in the west, but it is forever burned into the Russian psyche, and is *certainly* not "denied" by any Jews.

 

As the above link notes, in spite of our numerous hate groups here in America--the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Christians who obsequiously use "Judeo-Christian" in the same sentence as "the Rapture"--our First Amendment protects such "hate speech" and attempts to impose any limits on it have been limited to private institutions such as universities, and have run into lots of flak by both conservatives and their favorite enemy, the ACLU....

 

I've gone everywhere, trying to stop many atrocities: Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia. The least I can do is show the victims that they are not alone. When I went to Cambodia, journalists asked me, What are you doing here? This is not a Jewish tragedy. I answered, When I needed people to come, they didn't. That's why I am here, :phones:

Buffy

[GAHD]

...I think GAHD's reference to the Holocaust being exclusively about the Jews is a Red Herring if not outright unsupportable troll-bait.

In school our history teachers taught exclusively that Jews were targeted, and repeatedly thumped Ann Frank's Diary as a very important historical document. They completely ignored that "Gypsies, gays, mentally disabled, and endless other undesirables were rounded up in large numbers."

 

Until a friend of mine showed me other documents about the era I had been left woefully ignorant about the true scope of the camps on ALL SIDES of the war; only the Jewish portion of it was part of the curriculum, and the school libraries were completely deficient in explainig any other portion of the atocities.

 

There was no mention of the dwarvs/"little people" and other mutations being rounded up. There was no mention of the other ethnicities set as part of the manifesto. The Canadian and American run Camps were essentially wiped from history as far as education was concerned.

 

The true scope of the atrocities on both sides goes well beyond the simple view of Jewish prosecution, and it is for that reason I state that the Jewish Holocaust has an exaggerated place in history.

[Buffy]

So, conspiracy or typical oversimplification of a one period lesson plan that can fill a whole college major program?

 

The fault of evil Jewess teachers or your own for not bothering to read the books in the bibliography?

 

Are you *sure* you were awake for the whole class? :phones:

 

I agree that textbooks for K-12 are totally sucky (I've got a kid you know), but conflating it into some vast Jewish conspiracy to grab all the sympathy is beyond the pale...I know you're just "stating the facts," but I reserve the right to refute the implication!

 

It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion, :hyper:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Thanks for the replies, guys & gals.

 

As to your point about propaganda, Bill, isn't propaganda exactly what you're left with if you criminalize one side of the story?

 

I don't doubt the gassings and mass killings for a second, but if there are people out there that hypothesize that Zyklon B was merely used to de-louse the inmates to prevent the mass dieing of their slave work-force (manpower was, after all, a very precious commodity when most of your able-bodied men were on the front) then we should at least hear them out. We can then present them with evidence to the contrary, and that will be that.

 

But preventing them from doing so edges us closer to becoming exactly that which we despise in Hitler and Stalin - the Takers of Liberty.

 

I think it is completely wrong and totally indefensible.

 

And I'm sure that any Jew with a sense of freedom and liberty will agree with me - however distasteful the subject.

 

Proving them wrong in debate is so much more in tune with the rational beings we strife to be, than to merely smash their opinions down with the iron fist of the Law - which is exactly in tune with what Hitler and Stalin were.

 

The question is: Who and what do we want to be?

 

I am totally opposed to criminalizing Holocaust-denial.

[modest]

Why is legislation necessary to protect the holocaust take on history?

 

Why would you assume that legislation is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust? That’s a very odd conclusion.

 

Ask yourself why the Hitler salute is illegal in Germany. Whatever those reasons, whether you agree with them or not, do they also apply to a person denying the holocaust? To put it more bluntly: is the falsehood of the claim the thing that makes it illegal, or the character of the speech?

 

If it is the character of the speech then what is its character? As an analogy, go to the Apollo theater in Harlem, get on stage, and begin preaching that slavery never happened to the audience. What happens next? Is it reasonable to expect violence?

 

Now ask if it is reasonable for a free society which values free speech to limit hate speech which incites violence.

 

Your entire OP is based on a false premise. The holocaust happened as surely as the earth orbits the sun. That certitude is not at issue. The fact is, when someone approaches me and tries to argue that the sun orbits the earth, I'm under no particular obligation to bother with that person at all. But, if someone approaches me and tries to convince me that the holocaust is fiction then I'm obligated to knock them senseless. They are:

 

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

They are personally offensive to such an extent that they incite violence. Many very reasonable and freedom loving governments have decided to outlaw that type of thing in efforts to prevent a kind of complete and total lawlessness and anarchy.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

This is the most ridiculous post I have seen on the forum, and belongs in the strange claims rubric.

 

Nazi Holocaust is a fact. It is not a matter of opinion. The fact of Holocaust was not only a matter of notice--everyone knows it; but the matter was also adjudicated in many courts throughout Europe, the guilty found and punished, and cases closed. There is nothing to talk about other than to educate about its wrongs and refrain from smearing the facts.

 

The gagging order is a matter of public policy. It is a matter of public policy because in many many countries in Europe millions upon million of people suffered and lives were forever destroyed. For a state of official to deny holocaust is an offense against society to the extent that the officials represents population that was affected by State policy of systematic extermination of population through loss of life, property, liberty, or dignity. It is an equivalent of denial of slavery in U.S. to the extent that such parallel can ever be drawn.

[Boerseun]

This is the most ridiculous post I have seen on the forum, and belongs in the strange claims rubric.

Lawcat, please read the post again. I'm not coming to the defense of the Holocaust Deniers, I'm merely objecting to the fact that an opinion is being outlawed. You don't have to agree with an opinion to disagree with outlawing it.

Nazi Holocaust is a fact. It is not a matter of opinion.

Then there's no problem, surely. The fact that the Earth is round is also a proven fact and not a matter of opinion - yet we don't throw flat-earthers into the slammer.

There is nothing to talk about other than to educate about its wrongs and refrain from smearing the facts.

I think letting the Denialists run around making their claims and then disproving them would make for a much better educating tool for new generations than to merely teach it dogmatically. It would keep it in the public eye, so to speak, and achieve more in educating about its wrongs as the generations go by.

The gagging order is a matter of public policy. It is a matter of public policy because in many many countries in Europe millions upon million of people suffered and lives were forever destroyed.

Yes. And I agree with you. But you're taking that stance because you believe one side of the story. There are people out there who don't believe that side of the story, and should have the freedom to say so. The pro-holocaust crew is then able to disprove the anti-holocaust crew with evidence and debate. Look at it objectively from the top: There are two groups - one believes that the moon is made of rock, the other believes it is made of cheese. There is rock-solid evidence that the moon is made of rock, and not cheese. Why legislate against the cheese-mooners, when you can just tell them to go look at the evidence for a rocky moon, or go take a hike? What do you achieve by throwing them in jail? Like I said in the OP, outlawing it plays even more into the holocaust-deniers' hands, because it only makes sense if the holocaust never happened, and there is no proof for it, and it cannot be defended in any other way but legislation.

For a state of official to deny holocaust is an offense against society to the extent that the officials represents population that was affected by State policy of systematic extermination of population through loss of life, property, liberty, or dignity.

Well, keeping in mind the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, we should now outlaw the entire Catholic Church. It's exactly the same principle.

 

I also object to your saying that this thread should go to Strange Claims. This is not a claim. This thread is an objection against outlawing an idea, however despicable and outrageous that idea might be.

 

There might be guys out there who think Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice guy, and that all evidence against him was fabricated. Whatever I might think of Jeffrey Dahmer, I cannot for the life of me think that locking up people who hold such views can be justified in any way or form.

[lawcat]

Again, this belongs in the strange claims rubric. Your analogies are wacked and likely intentionally wacked to create controversy. Analogy of holocaust to cheese moon and flat earth beliefs is improper. It is improper because of the cultural effect and consequences of the belief.

 

A belief in non-eistence of holocaust serves no societal purpose other than to condone genocidal behavior and encite hatred. It can not be religious because it is not a matter of religion--it is a matter of historical secular fact of human political conduct, not nature. It is not secular because the secular government has declared the truth of holocaust through adjudications and public notice. It is a wacked out belief that serves no religious or valid secular purpose other than to advance political agenda for unacceptable human conduct that encites hatered and condones genocide.

[Boerseun]

Why would you assume that legislation is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust? That’s a very odd conclusion.

That's exactly what it would seem like to the holocaust-deniers. Legislating against it gives them even more fodder for saying that it's a Great Big Conspiracy. Give them the freedom to say as they please, and whack them senseless with evidence in favour of holocaust history. Outlaw their take on things, and they would just slap each other on the back and say "See! It never happened, and the only way to suppress the Truth that it never happened is by throwing us in jail!" I think that is very short-sighted, and will achieve exactly the opposite, what with the internet and conspiracy theorists running amok.

Ask yourself why the Hitler salute is illegal in Germany.

Heck, I know what you're saying, I get it, but I might just be too much of a liberal pinko to think that any government legislating against a particular body posture can ever be a good idea. Do they allow one-armed swimmers in the Special Olympics in Berlin? How does the one-armed swimmer dive into the pool without giving the Hitler Salute? I know - I'm being an ***. But only because that is such a ridiculous law. Are you allowed to give the Hitler Salute on stage, in a play where it's part of the script? What if you wake up in that position? That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard of in ages.

Whatever those reasons, whether you agree with them or not, do they also apply to a person denying the holocaust? To put it more bluntly: is the falsehood of the claim the thing that makes it illegal, or the character of the speech?

I understand what you're saying, but that might be taking it too far. Like I said, there are two sides battling for the "truth" here. We all agree on the one side. There are fringe loonies who deny that it ever happened. Now we lock them up. The only outcome I can see from this is that it will give them even more fodder for their argument that the holocaust never happened. They will increase their popularity and support from us turning them into martyrs for their cause. Leave them be, and knock them out in open (legal) debate with the mountains of evidence in favour of the holocaust having happened. I don't see how a looney with a certain take on history can lead to violence and anarchy. I can, however, see how legislating against ideas can start eroding the freedoms that I, for one, hold dear - those very same freedoms that Europe gained by defeating Adolf Hitler in the first place.

If it is the character of the speech then what is its character? As an analogy, go to the Apollo theater in Harlem, get on stage, and begin preaching that slavery never happened to the audience. What happens next? Is it reasonable to expect violence?

I'm sure anybody who knows Harlem and knows about slavery and knows about the Harlemites' take on things will know what the outcome will be if they hop on stage and start dissin' them. But if he's foolish enough to do so, by all means - let him. I cannot for the life of me justify that we should now legislate behaviour, too. For god's sake, man. There comes a time when a government should trust its people to be adults.

 

The pro-gay lobby reckons that it is wrong for government to legislate what men can and cannot do with their genitals, and where they're allowed to shove it. Sodomy laws have been repealed because of this argument - men are adults, their bodies and genitals are their business, and has nothing at all to do with the State. Same with your Harlem analogy. Where you decide to make a fool of yourself is nobody's business but your own. Cutting yourself with a dirty knife can lead to tetanus and death. There is no law against it - the best the authorities can do is to warn you of the dangers inherent in it, and leave you to it.

Now ask if it is reasonable for a free society which values free speech to limit hate speech which incites violence.

That's the thing, you see. I've started reading up on the holocaust denier's arguments, because I really want to see how they can justify their stance. And as far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero hate speech involved. As an example, the so-called "revisionists" have taken samples of the insides of the gas chambers and analysed them, and have found the concentration of cyanide in the walls at about the same as in the rest of the buildings on the site. There are buildings close to the railway platforms where the new inmates arrived. Everybody - that is, guards, survivors, everybody, agrees that these buildings were used exclusively for de-lousing new inmates. Those buildings have very high concentrations of cyanide in the walls, from the insecticides the inmates were treated with before proceeding. Yet, a sample from the gas chambers show no higher concentration than a random sample taken from anywhere in the complex.

 

It's arguments such as these that the "revisionists" bring forward. I have not seen anywhere that there is a renewed call for hate or violence towards the Jews. What I've read so far is that the "revisionists" claim that the entire holocaust idea is based purely on eye-witness accounts, but that forensic evidence is being suppressed. Now, in jurisprudence, there is a hierarchy of evidence. Physical evidence comes in on top. Eyewitness accounts come in last, and carry the least weight. It's like a murderer saying "I didn't do it" only to have the gun with his fingerprints on it being enough to send him to jail.

 

Like I say, there is very little in what they have to say that will stir any unrest or hate or violence - and legislating against them because of that fear might be a little quick on the trigger. Of course there will be neo-nazi groups out there who will jump on the bandwagon, but now they jump on the bandwagon because we've created martyrs for them. I don't see the risk of violence being any higher or lower in this regard.

Your entire OP is based on a false premise. The holocaust happened as surely as the earth orbits the sun. That certitude is not at issue. The fact is, when someone approaches me and tries to argue that the sun orbits the earth, I'm under no particular obligation to bother with that person at all. But, if someone approaches me and tries to convince me that the holocaust is fiction then I'm obligated to knock them senseless.

I don't agree with that at all. If I'm convinced of my stance, then I need not knock anybody senseless. I can, however, knock them senseless with the weight of evidence in favour of my stance. You shouldn't have to knock anybody senseless because you don't agree with him. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are fair game.

They are personally offensive to such an extent that they incite violence. Many very reasonable and freedom loving governments have decided to outlaw that type of thing in efforts to prevent a kind of complete and total lawlessness and anarchy.

That might have been the intent, I'm sure - but I'm of the opinion that it plays very well into their hand, and is achieving the exact opposite as intended by creating "martyrs" to the "cause".

[Boerseun]

Again, this belongs in the strange claims rubric. Your analogies are wacked and likely intentionally wacked to create controversy. Analogy of holocaust to cheese moon and flat earth beliefs is improper. It is improper because of the cultural effect and consequences of the belief.

Why would those analogies be "improper", lawcat? I've specifically used analogies where the truth of the matter is obvious. I think that it applies very well.

A belief in non-eistence of holocaust serves no societal purpose other than to condone genocidal behavior and encite hatred.

I fail to see how this circular reasoning can apply. How can the belief that the holocaust never happened, condone behaviour that thus also "never happened"?

It can not be religious because it is not a matter of religion--it is a matter of historical secular fact of human political conduct, not nature. It is not secular because the secular government has declared the truth of holocaust through adjudications and public notice. It is a wacked out belief that serves no religious or valid secular purpose other than to advance political agenda for unacceptable human conduct that encites hatered and condones genocide.

It is whacked out, I agree. But consider: Let's theorize for a second that Ghengis Khan never lived. Let's speculate that his existence is a complete fabrication. Let's say that all historians in the world have the cat by the tail by claiming his existence. With one fell sweep, we pretend that his reign of terror in Asia never happened, and we pretend that millions of Mongols were not put to the sword by Ghengis. That is at least as historically wrong and insensitive to the victims as holocaust denial. But it's not illegal to say so. That is the difference, and the point I'm trying to make.

[lawcat]

I am not going to respond beyond this third reply.

 

If in your fenced off backyard we find that: you held dominion under guns, and 200 dead bodies are discovered underground; then it is a matter of notice that you murdered 200 people. No one else could have done it but you, inless you prove that someone else did it and you were not there.

 

Here, the States acted (conduct) under its military powers, the States systematically exterminated civilian population on the basis of ethnicity, and States exterminated millions of people. The actors are States, and victims are millions of of their own civilians, and it happened 60 years ago. This is not similar in facts of cheese moon in nature, or Jeffrey Dahmer in scope and perpetrator, or Ghengis Khan in recency and relevancy to the States.

 

This is a matter of fact not opinion. The facts are true on two separate grounds: public notice and adjudication. There is nothing to assert to raise the question of whether holocaust existed. Facts are true and opinion has no societal benefit, other than to smear the facts and stir up tensions in society to insult the victims. The denial is fraud on factual grounds and enticement of hate on opinion grounds. Under no circumstances can denial of holcaust be honest and in good faith.

 

For you, as a resident of South Africa, to opine on this is even more perpelexing since the issue is not relevant to you. Yet you find it fair to back those who perpetuate fraud and hate, on grounds of liberty of thought. You can think whatever you want within the confines of you property. But in some States in Europe you can not publicly perpetuate fraud and enticement of hate on the people of that State. The laws there are fair and justified. For you to speak from South Africa by condoning dishonest, bad faith, fraudulent, and hateful public speech speaks to your compass of thought.

[Pyrotex]

I think it was a mistake to raise two separate questions as if they they were sides of the same coin.

 

1. Why some states make Holocaust Denial an illegal act?

 

2. The legitimacy of Jews in Israel? (or any other question involving Israel)

 

These two questions actually are independant. They aren't really even relevant to each other. Neither one contributes to an answer or even to an understanding of the other. They never should have been conjoined in the first place.

 

The act of denying the Holocaust is NOT a "free expression of personal opinion". The reality of that event has been proven many times in many ways. The "deniers" have no evidence at all, and in most cases cannot even show that they did any research to speak of. Most deniers are well aware of the mountain of proof for the Holocaust. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

 

At its root, denying the Holocaust is simply an act of malice. It is an act that begins with: "what is the most offensive thing I could say to Jews?" And it ends with denying the most horrific tragedy that has befallen Jews in recent history. It is a twisted way of saying, "I deny your existence", or "I take pleasure in your tragedy" or "Your culture and history is a lie" or "I am spitting on you and you cannot stop me".

 

Looked at this way, Holocaust Denial may be compared to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, or publically spitting on someone, or publically calling someone an obscene epithet or "shooting the finger" at someone.

 

Is criminalizing it justified? I'm not a lawyer, and so I decline to stick my neck out. It might be if it's done to the point of "inciting to riot" -- or if it causes a "persistent evironment of threat". What I do know is, the 2 or 3 times I have heard someone in my presence deny the Holocaust, my first reaction was the intense desire to bitchslap them.

[Boerseun]

I am not going to respond beyond this third reply.

Okay. It doesn't seem like you're getting my point, anyway.

If in your fenced off backyard we find that: you held dominion under guns, and 200 dead bodies are discovered underground; then it is a matter of notice that you murdered 200 people. No one else could have done it but you, inless you prove that someone else did it and you were not there.

Here's the thing: The issue I have is not with the 200 dead bodies in my back yard. My guilt is not under suspicion or discussion. I'm guilty as all hell, sure. I'm sent away for a long, long time with a guilty verdict being passed by 11 of the 12 jury members. My problem, however, lies with locking up that 12th juror who believed those 200 people were killed by Martians and that I am innocent. History is decided by evidence, not by decree. Do you get it now?

Here, the States acted (conduct) under its military powers, the States systematically exterminated civilian population on the basis of ethnicity, and States exterminated millions of people. The actors are States, and victims are millions of of their own civilians, and it happened 60 years ago. This is not similar in facts of cheese moon in nature, or Jeffrey Dahmer in scope and perpetrator, or Ghengis Khan in recency and relevancy to the States.

I picked the cheesy-moon thing as an analogy, because the truth in the matter is immediately obvious. I don't have to explain to you why I'm saying what I'm saying, because everybody knows that the moon is made of rock, not cheese. I can't understand why or how you don't see it as fitting. What analogy am I allowed to employ when making a point regarding the holocaust? I will not be surprised to find that you'll say that the holocaust was such a profound historic event that no analogy will do it justice, which means that I can't use an analogy that is respectable enough to illustrate my point, and then in lieu of an analogy, I'll have to state "Lets imagine that there are people believing the holocaust never happened" but I'm not allowed to say that, now, because it's legislated against. Which means history have now been taken out of the hands of the historians and changed into dogma. Let the dissenters have their say, and then beat them over the head with evidence. Any other way is intellectual cowardice and hypocritical when we imagine ourselves to be free people.

This is a matter of fact not opinion. The facts are true on two separate grounds: public notice and adjudication. There is nothing to assert to raise the question of whether holocaust existed.

"A matter of fact not opinion" - Exactly. And so is gravity. Yet, we don't legislate against people who run around screaming that tonight at 12:00 gravity will suddenly reverse. This will cause mass panic, surely. Luckily we know it won't, because people are not as dumb as to buy in to this bull. The guy will run down the street making a complete *** of himself. People are better informed than we give them credit for. Some of them, even, are adults and can decide for themselves. We don't have to legislate opinions. That is just moronic, and rather fascist, if truth be told.

Facts are true and opinion has no societal benefit, other than to smear the facts and stir up tensions in society to insult the victims. The denial is fraud on factual grounds and enticement of hate on opinion grounds. Under no circumstances can denial of holcaust be honest and in good faith.

Well, that is your opinion, and subjective to the n'th degree. You are holding that each and every denialist does so because he hates. Well, I can very well imagine somebody deny the very concept of the holocaust because they have firm faith in humankind, and cannot fathom something like this happening. Surely, people cannot be that evil, the housewife asks herself, as she converts herself to a staunch holocaust denialist because she might have a tad too much faith in humanity. She reads up on the history of the Second World War, and refuses to believe what she sees in those books. This kind of naiveté based on an unfailing belief that humans are in effect good and kind and incapable of such horrors might have been endearing a few years ago. This will now land her in jail. I fail to see any hate there, however. Obviously, this is not always the case, and some denialists are pure evil neo-nazis. But it should be clear that when it comes to an opinion such as this, you cannot throw a blanket over it and say that it is inevitably based on hate. Some people might just believe that humans are good and kind and incapable of things like that, however naive and ill-informed they might be.

For you, as a resident of South Africa, to opine on this is even more perpelexing since the issue is not relevant to you.

My flabber is sufficiently gasted by this utterance of yours, squire. Do you think we have no Jews in Darkest Africa? Do you think we have no holocaust memorial days in Darkest Africa? Do you think our soldiers took no part in the liberation of continental Europe? Do you think my family's bones doesn't lie scattered over Europe? How, exactly, does this not affect me? Europe called for liberation, and the Allies answered. Through bloodshed and tears, we have liberated Europe. My country was part of the British Commonwealth, and we took part in the battle in Europe and North Africa. Do you think after all that, it's nice to watch Europe erode its own freedoms by outlawing ideas? Isn't that how the **** started, to begin with? You're telling me that because my country had nothing to do with the moon landing, I'm not allowed to discuss it, and if I were to do so, my opinion on it would be "perplexing"? This particular line of yours is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on Hypography. Are you in Europe? Are you a German? Are you a Jew? Not? Then what the hell does this have to do with you, and why are you allowed an opinion? Or does the manipulation of who being allowed to say what just come naturally after you start supporting the outlawing of ideas?

Yet you find it fair to back those who perpetuate fraud and hate, on grounds of liberty of thought.

Well, I suppose if you quit with the strawmanning and stop putting words in my mouth, we might just have the beginnings of a constructive conversation. I dare you cite me one sentence where I "supported those who perpetuate fraud and hate". I, for one, for no second deny the reality of the holocaust. It's suppressing the other side with bully-tactics like outlawing it, that gets me down. Stating that holocaust denial is tantamount to hate, etc., is jumping to conclusions. Somebody, like the naive housewife I mentioned above, might just not be well informed, or simply historically illiterate, or simply too good-hearted to believe that anybody can lower themselves to actually do those dastardly deeds. Holocaust denial does not necesseraly equal skinheads, neo-nazis or hate. Because skinheads and neo-nazis might be holocaust deniers, it does not follow that all holocaust deniers are skinheads and neo-nazis. They might just be ill informed. Once again, the justice of outlawing an opinion escapes me.

You can think whatever you want within the confines of you property. But in some States in Europe you can not publicly perpetuate fraud and enticement of hate on the people of that State. The laws there are fair and justified. For you to speak from South Africa by condoning dishonest, bad faith, fraudulent, and hateful public speech speaks to your compass of thought.

Tut tut, lawcat. Don't let my limited "compass of thought" rock your fine sensibilities as to justice and freedom. Seeing as you have made your mind up that any individual questioning the holocaust must be filled with hate against jews and so on and so forth, I will not ask any further uncomfortable questions like the one about the naive and good-hearted people who simply don't believe in the holocaust because it is actually unbelievable, as far as they might be concerned. Until you go and sit and do a thorough study and convince yourself that those pictures are real, yes - those really are dead people, those really are chimneys, that's not snow - it's human ash, and you wake up in the night screaming when the reality hits you that it is actually true. I fail to see where a good person simply refuses to believe in the truth of these horrors, he was spouting hate. But hey - if it makes you sleep better at night believing that good people who (naively) believe in the goodness of mankind are all evil, even if they are merely historically uneducated, then so be it. You did say this was to be your last post in this thread, after all. But somehow I doubt it.