An excellent post epepke. Do you think the German law is intended to prevent denial or to be seen to take a stand against it?

Federico wrote "Antisemites oppose any priviledged treatment of the Jews which would make them any more special than they already are."

Hang on. Does this mean that if you think all people or groups should be treated the same then you are an anti-semite? OK, I'm one. I might even be proud of the fact if your logic is right.

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: [*]Question: Is the life of Jews killed by genocidal Nazis more valuable than that of (eg) Armenians killed by genocidal Turcs in the eyes of world opinion?
Answer: Yes. Not only because many more Jewish lives went up in smoke, but also because the Armenian genocide happened so long ago it doesn't carry the same emotional impact. Besides, you don't see Turcs parading through the streets of Ankara carrying flags which say "Death to Armenians."The same is true for Tutsis massacred by Hutus in Rwanda, or Darfurians in south Sudan.

First of all, this claim is patent bullshit. Show me one credible source that says world opinion is that Armenian lives are worth less than Jewish lives.

Secondly, even if it were true, that would be blatant bigotry that should be refuted and dismissed, not pandered to by accomodating it in criminal law.

Human nature being as it is, men's natural tendency is to forget as soon as possible unpleasant things, particularly if they happened in their own backyard and their own compatriots were responsible for them.
This unfortunate turn of events has been evidentiated by a poll taken recently by the German magazine Stern.
The poll has revealed that 21% of Germans aged between 18-29 years ignores entirely what happened at Auschwitz. Thirty one % doesn't even know that's in Poland, and 43% has never visited those "Horrific Killing Fields".

On the other hand, if in 1994 a 53% majority thought it was now the moment to stop definitely putting under the limelight this most somber part of German History, nowadays only 40% wishes that.
Given the effort and the expenses needed to try and keep alive the remembrance of the Shoah at least in Europe if not all over the world so that it won't happen again, it means that many people still care enough about the Jews and their suffering to get emotionally and financially involved every single year for the last 70 years. You may call that a labor of love.
Are Armenians, Tutsis, Darfurians, Bosnian Serbs etc less "loved" than Jews? Lets say that their Genocide is less emotionally wrenching and mainly forgotten for the reasons I have already given. A cynical person would say: "Who gives a hoot about Hutus and Tutsis. Who are they? Where do they live? And, in any case, they have been killing each other for centuries in tribal wars."
For the Armenians there is an interesting analysis made by the BBC:
" The mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I remains a highly sensitive issue.
Turkey has resisted widespread calls for it to recognise the 1915-16 killings as genocide, while historians continue to argue about the events......"
".....There is general agreement that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died when the Ottoman Turks deported them en masse from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert and elsewhere in 1915-16. They were killed or died from starvation or disease.
The total number of Armenian dead is disputed. Armenians say 1.5 million died. The Republic of Turkey estimates the total to be 300,000....."
"... Turkish officials accept that atrocities were committed but argue that there was no systematic attempt to destroy the Christian Armenian people [One of the criteria which, according to the UN, must be present to call mass murder Genocide]...."

In conclusion, it isn't really a question of one people being less loved than the other, but rather one ethnic group has many more rich friends prepared to spend time and money for its cause.

Federico wrote: In conclusion, it isn't really a question of one people being less loved than the other, but rather one ethnic group has many more rich friends prepared to spend time and money for its cause.

Federico wrote "Are Armenians, Tutsis, Darfurians, Bosnian Serbs etc less "loved" than Jews?"

No. But infinitely less organized and infinitely less represented in the world of media.

logical bob wrote:An excellent post epepke. Do you think the German law is intended to prevent denial or to be seen to take a stand against it?

I have no idea. I don't think it matters much. There is no guarantee that the effect of a law has anything to do with its intent, and it's difficult to figure out the actual intent behind something essentially written by committee. I tend to be a bit cynical about people's motivations, but that might be wrong, too. I also like to be contrary, as I think the more sides of an issue that are looked at, the better it is.

Here's a case where less prohibition seems to have lessened a problem:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FshBjkS6U[/youtube]

That's not even as murky as a free speech issue, but at least it shows that the effects of a law can be counterintuitive for many.

In other cases, prohibition might work great. I don't know to tell except by detailed, specific study of the effects in a particular case, and I don't see much of that.

pinkharrier wrote:

Federico wrote "Are Armenians, Tutsis, Darfurians, Bosnian Serbs etc less "loved" than Jews?"

No. But infinitely less organized and infinitely less represented in the world of media.

My point, exactly.

Obviously, had the Armenians (e.g.) had access, since the time their genocide occurred (1915), to the kind of money and powerful, worldwide support the Jews have had, their national tragedy would have been much more well known. And this applies to all the other mass killings whether they qualify or not to the term "Genocide".
The doubt lies rather on the results hoped for and/or achieved by those in charge for all the means used relentlessly since then to make sure the Shoah will never be forgotten, but also never repeated. And that's, IMO, as the French say "Où le bas blesse", literally "Where the sock hurts", wherein lies the problem.
It is indeed impossible to prove another mass killing of Jews might have or might occur again without the "Remembrance Day" and/or the anti-Negationism Laws. Done by whom? Possibly by anti-Semitic Moslems when a substantial number of Jews still lived in their proximity (Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria.) But nowadays?
According to some forumists(sic) the campaign might even have had the perverse effect of increasing lukewarm or subliminal anti-Semitism unfortunately still present in many countries. As "Prohibitionism" Laws did in the US in the 1930' for alcohol consumption.
Perhaps.
However, notwithstanding all these considerations, I believe (and I'm repeating myself) that what many consider the crime of all crimes, (i.e.) the purposeful, planned, almost successful effort to wipe the face of the Earth of every single Jew, be left to disappear with time from the fickle memory of the in-Humanity. Particularly galling for the few who survived or returned in the places where all the horror was planned and where it begun.

The Portugal analogy doesn't actually work. Portugal has only decriminalized drug consumption. Selling/distributing the illegal drugs is still considered a crime. Consumption of holocaust denial material has never been a crime. Only distributing holocaust material is a crime. So, wrong analogy. (BTW: I would support drug decriminalisation including drug trafficking)

Alcohol prohibition: Yes, stopping alcohol prohibition had positive effects: It stopped the criminal structures trading alcohol illegally, it also decreased health problems stemming from bad products. It also increased personal liberties because I cannot see a problem when there is widespread moderate alcohol consumption in society.

But stopping alcohol prohibition did not mean that fewer people drink alcohol. Would you want to see "moderate" holocaust denial as widespread as moderate alcohol consumption? I don't.

Again: I wouldn't mind scraping laws against holocaust denial, but I don't see this as a top priority and I see that most of the people here arguing against the law don't even understand how it actually works. You are mostly arguing against a strawman version of the law.

NineBerry wrote:Again: I wouldn't mind scraping laws against holocaust denial, but I don't see this as a top priority and I see that most of the people here arguing against the law don't even understand how it actually works. You are mostly arguing against a strawman version of the law.

For my part, I would say I did misunderstand the law at first, but thanks to your efforts that is no longer the case. My disagreement with the law remains based on the loose interpretation of the term "public peace" that you describe.

NineBerry wrote:The Portugal analogy doesn't actually work. Portugal has only decriminalized drug consumption. Selling/distributing the illegal drugs is still considered a crime. Consumption of holocaust denial material has never been a crime. Only distributing holocaust material is a crime. So, wrong analogy. (BTW: I would support drug decriminalisation including drug trafficking)

No analogy works. I made pretty clear what I was using the Portugal example for, demonstrating that the effects of laws can be counterintuitive for many. It is an example of this.

But stopping alcohol prohibition did not mean that fewer people drink alcohol. Would you want to see "moderate" holocaust denial as widespread as moderate alcohol consumption? I don't.

I am not a conservative, so I don't have the categorical mindset common amongst conservatives that there should be a law against everything someone doesn't like. But that's ideology.

In terms of personal preference and practicality, if I had my druthers, I would like to see a reduction in the basic attitudes and ignorance of which holocaust denialism is a symptom. I have not seen any evidence that preventing people from advocating it with speech reduces belief, at all. More importantly, I haven't seen anybody mount any kind of argument that it does. It just seems to be tacitly assumed that it does.

One question that is seldom asked is: does Holocaust denial make any sense? Is it a worthwhile pursuit of an unpopular truth, or is it just dark, sticky pseudohistory? Those pushing the HD agenda appear to be on the extreme right, extreme left and among Islamists. Not really the groups known as banner-bearers for free speech, academic freedom, or even common decency...

Varangian wrote:One question that is seldom asked is: does Holocaust denial make any sense? Is it a worthwhile pursuit of an unpopular truth, or is it just dark, sticky pseudohistory? Those pushing the HD agenda appear to be on the extreme right, extreme left and among Islamists. Not really the groups known as banner-bearers for free speech, academic freedom, or even common decency...

Which doesn't matter in the least. Civil liberties are not just bestowed on a select few who are deemed deserving of them.

Shrunk wrote:

Varangian wrote:One question that is seldom asked is: does Holocaust denial make any sense? Is it a worthwhile pursuit of an unpopular truth, or is it just dark, sticky pseudohistory? Those pushing the HD agenda appear to be on the extreme right, extreme left and among Islamists. Not really the groups known as banner-bearers for free speech, academic freedom, or even common decency...

Which doesn't matter in the least. Civil liberties are not just bestowed on a select few who are deemed deserving of them.

I would argue (though I doubt that anybody would understand) that freedom of speech is only for offensive, stupid, and/or obnoxious speech. That's because nice, smart, inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

epepke wrote: I would argue (though I doubt that anybody would understand) that freedom of speech is only for offensive, stupid, and/or obnoxious speech. That's because nice, smart, inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

I think I understand. In any event I agree 100% with what I think your saying.

It becomes now more and more apparent that the real fight for freedom of expression is now going to be fought not for complicated and murky issues like the right to deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but rather against what is considered a new form of censorship adapted to the new social media like Google and Twitter.
Nowadays when we mention censorship we don't have in mind the model used in Dictatorships like the former USSR, or China, Iran, and Syria, but rather the one used in Democracies to protect the State from the circulation of news which might damage it, or to protect economic and financial interests. And the targets for the new censorship may be religious, sexual, racial, or even diplomatic, as in the case Assange-Wikileaks.
But the most important battlefield is really the Web, as illustrated by the already mentioned story of Megauploads, the file-sharing site blocked by the FBI, where the Knights in shining armor, new Templars of a totally free Web, are in perennial conflct with multinationals apparently defending authorship rights but in fact minding their own interests.
One result of such fight is ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) which, while devised to protect copyright, is indeed a new form of censure.

+1

Petition against ACTA: http://www.avaaz.org/de/eu_save_the_int ... pread/?twi

Shrunk wrote:

epepke wrote: I would argue (though I doubt that anybody would understand) that freedom of speech is only for offensive, stupid, and/or obnoxious speech. That's because nice, smart, inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

I think I understand. In any event I agree 100% with what I think your saying.

You probably do. I'm just frustrated.

That "public peace" idea that has been attributed to German law, for instance. It seems to amount to saying that it's to prevent speech that makes anybody feel unsafe or unsettled. That's what offensive speech does, makes people anxious. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. As an atheist, the pan-Christian impulse makes me feel unsafe. I think that's a good thing, because knowing about it enables me to make choices.

As a principle, I do not support anti hate speech laws or laws against holocaust denial in society. In my opinion,freedom of speech MUST include the right to give gross offence.

BUT this is an internet forum,not a democracy,one place I can come to get away from such human detritis.

In reality, when I come across such people (twice in the last ten years) I usually just laugh,and walk away muttering unkind things about their education,intellect and breeding,instead of hitting them with the nearest blunt instrument

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
NOTE TO MODS

IF PERMITTED :


Below is a link to The Skeptics Society Forum,which has an entire section reserved for Holocaust denial. A bit of a read will explain why such troglodytes haves no place in civilised society,and treated with the ridicule and contempt they deserve.


http://www.skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=39

PS 'David' and 'Bob' are the resident troglodytes.

epepke wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

epepke wrote: I would argue (though I doubt that anybody would understand) that freedom of speech is only for offensive, stupid, and/or obnoxious speech. That's because nice, smart, inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

I think I understand. In any event I agree 100% with what I think your saying.

You probably do. I'm just frustrated.

That "public peace" idea that has been attributed to German law, for instance. It seems to amount to saying that it's to prevent speech that makes anybody feel unsafe or unsettled. That's what offensive speech does, makes people anxious. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. As an atheist, the pan-Christian impulse makes me feel unsafe. I think that's a good thing, because knowing about it enables me to make choices.

That's the crux of the matter. We will never be rid of the irrational, hateful views of a small minority - people who cannot be reasoned with, and whose views are so out there that it would be convenient to suppress them. "Free speech" isn't the same as that everything is permitted. The Germans have drawn some conclusions from their history, and several other EU countries have followed their example (the Nazis and neo-Nazis weren't/aren't confined to Germany, as is evident by the existence of e.g. Russian Nazis). As time passes, it will hopefully be possible to relax the laws, but I'm afraid that there will always be assholes who will prove that there's a reason for them.

gleniedee wrote:As a principle, I do not support anti hate speech laws or laws against holocaust denial in society. In my opinion,freedom of speech MUST include the right to give gross offence.

BUT this is an internet forum,not a democracy,one place I can come to get away from such human detritis.

And that I have no problem with. If someone here is promoting Holocaust denial as a disguised expression of antisemitism, they should be sanctioned by the mods.