NineBerry wrote:The term holocaust specifically refers to the attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. There were lots of other crimes against humanity in Nazi Germany, but they are not counted as part of the holocaust, however they are still covered by the law banning denial of crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany

Yeah, you keep saying this. I'm wondering what the point is.

I'm still wondering what else should be covered by "denial" laws. Nineberry doesn't say.

NineBerry wrote:

epepke wrote:

NineBerry wrote:The term holocaust specifically refers to the attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. There were lots of other crimes against humanity in Nazi Germany, but they are not counted as part of the holocaust, however they are still covered by the law banning denial of crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany

Yeah, you keep saying this. I'm wondering what the point is.

The point of which aspect?

Well, what'e the conclusion? What does having a special word for the Holocaust do for your argument? Or for any argument?

epepke wrote:

However, if I am to judge prohibition of holocaust denial in that context, then I am by the same token entitled to judge Judenhass and the holocaust itself in that context. The other fierce allies of the Nazis were the Japanese, who were also big on honor. So maybe being that big on honor sucks in the first place.

Don't talk to me of Japanese honor during the war. They dishonored themselves for ever with some pretty nasty atrocities even an SS would blush at the thought of it.
What I'm talking about is called "War crimes against women" and is exhaustively described in the homonimous book written by Kelly Dawn Askin.
Amongst the many, horrible stories of women's sufferings during various wars, you can read about "comfort women", a pleonasm of what were in fact young women -- mainly Asiatic but also Dutch and many as young as 15 years of age -- who were forced to work as prostitutes for Japanese soldiers during WW2.
They were abducted from Indonesian villages or concentration camps for families of allied PWs, brought to makeshift bordellos, beaten and gang raped day and night until, when completely destroyed mentally and physically, they were returned to their mothers if they survived the ordeal. Actually many mothers later referred to the allied soldiers who delivered them they would have preferred death for their daughters rather than the horrific ordeal hey had to go through.

One Dutch woman, who lived in Indonesia during the war -- Ruff-O'Herne -- was the first Western woman to provide support to Asiatic women forced to work as prostitutes. Later, she wrote a book where she described her own experience as a "comfort woman": Jan Ruff-O'Herne. 50 years of silence (1994).

The Japanese Government denied involvement but, when confronted with conclusive evidence, was forced to knowledge its direct implication. I don't believe any Japanese was ever punished for those crimes.

NineBerry wrote:It completely irrelevant. People are using it wrongly:

Yeah, I see that, with respect to the actual German laws. But that's kind of minor.

Federico wrote:

epepke wrote:

However, if I am to judge prohibition of holocaust denial in that context, then I am by the same token entitled to judge Judenhass and the holocaust itself in that context. The other fierce allies of the Nazis were the Japanese, who were also big on honor. So maybe being that big on honor sucks in the first place.

Don't talk to me of Japanese honor during the war. They dishonored themselves for ever with some pretty nasty atrocities even an SS would blush at the thought of it.

Bleah. With a name like Federico, you should know the difference between honra and honor. "La negra que se llama honra," as Lazaro de Tormes said. Honra is an ugly and destructive thing; honor is basic decency. Just because English has only one word for the two concepts doesn't mean that it makes any sense to conflate the two.

epepke wrote:

Federico wrote:

epepke wrote:

However, if I am to judge prohibition of holocaust denial in that context, then I am by the same token entitled to judge Judenhass and the holocaust itself in that context. The other fierce allies of the Nazis were the Japanese, who were also big on honor. So maybe being that big on honor sucks in the first place.

Don't talk to me of Japanese honor during the war. They dishonored themselves for ever with some pretty nasty atrocities even an SS would blush at the thought of it.

Bleah. With a name like Federico, you should know the difference between honra and [/i]honor.[/i] "La negra que se llama honra," as Lazaro de Tormes said. Honra is an ugly and destructive thing; honor is basic decency. Just because English has only one word for the two concepts doesn't mean that it makes any sense to conflate the two.

The Italian language, which I know pretty well, differentiates honor from dishonor. And I must say that the best allies of the Germans -- as you call them -- dishonored themselves for their behavior during the war.

Federico wrote:The Italian language, which I know pretty well, differentiates honor from dishonor. And I must say that the best allies of the Germans -- as you call them -- dishonored themselves for their behavior during the war.

Probably.

Maybe Spanish is more subtle, though I previously believed that this was also present in Italian and Portuguese. Well, maybe not.

NineBerry wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:I'm still wondering what else should be covered by "denial" laws. Nineberry doesn't say.

I can tell you what IS also covered. Scott Lively's pamphlets about the Nazi movement being a homosexual movement for example falls under the same law. And what he and the like of him do in African countries (and also party in America) shows how dangerous speech alone can be.

Sounds like another reason to dump the law. Dangerous? So Turks objecting to the Armenian analysis of 1915 is dangerous? Again you stay clear of commenting on the application (or not) of "denial" laws to other events. What are you thoughts? What should be off limits because the truth is writ in stone?

As someone suggested (oh, it was me!), probably it helps the Jews, in their unattainable reach for peace of mind, having done everything in their power not to let peple forget the Holocaust, to have many rich and powerful supporters. But it also helps to remember what non-Jewish people like Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallemberg have done to save as many Jews as they could from the murderous Nazis.

Wallenberg is remembered by The Economist, in an article entitled "Remembering Raoul".

"Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat, and a scion of a powerful banking family, who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews during the war by issuing them with Swedish papers, placing them under Swedish protection, and intervening at deportation and execution sites.
"....Wallenberg may not have thought himself a hero, but he was one, and [it's very important that] the memory of his courage, and that of his helpers, endures. Especially now. In Hungary, like much of Europe, intolerance, racism and xenophobia is on the rise. The far-right Jobbik party, no friend of Hungary’s Jews or Roma minorities, won 16.7 per cent of the vote in April elections, making it the third-largest party in parliament......"

"....Wallenberg was captured by the Russians on January 17th 1945 in Budapest and soon disappeared into the maw of the gulag. His fate remains a mystery."

Federico wrote: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.

Some of the posters in this thread have taken the opportunity to defend freedom of expression also in the current and running struggle against Big Brother trying to limit the freedom of Internet.
This is particularly relevant in the case of a piece of proposed legislation called ACTA.

What is rather preposterous is the way taken by the Conservtive Canadian Government in its effort to defend what, after all, is an attack on freedom of expression.

Indeed, as written by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail:

On Internet privacy, I’m with the child pornographers

"Where do you stand on the new online surveillance bill? Are you with the government? Or are you with the child pornographers? According to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, you have to choose.
In case you fail to get the point, the new legislation is being subtly marketed as the [i]Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act. Of course, maybe you don’t really care about protecting children from Internet predators. Maybe you don’t care that without this law, filthy perverts will continue to roam free. Really, it’s your choice.....

....Critics say the act should really be called the Licence to Snoop Law. That’s because the bill would give police the power to acquire detailed information about who you are online, without answering to anyone about why.
But wait! Isn’t this the same government that whipped up moral panic over the gun registry and the long-form census? In each case, they told us our right to privacy was threatened by egregious intrusions from the state. The state has no business knowing how many bathrooms you have – but if it wants access to your online activities, hey, that’s totally okay....

.....I wish governments would stick to collecting taxes, managing the economy and trade talks with China. But they never do. Invariably, they try to improve society by imposing their values on us. Conservatives think they can improve society by getting tough on crime and cracking down on drugs. Liberals think they can improve society by enhancing social conditions and easing up on drugs. Conservatives believe in authority and justice. Liberals believe in equality and fairness. Conservatives believe in the police. Liberals believe in human-rights commissions.....

.... So why do I stand with the child pornographers here? Because I’m not convinced the police need new powers to root out online child molesters. Judging by the recent highly publicized busts of child-porn rings, their existing powers seem to be working fine. Nor am I convinced that the police will never abuse their power. History shows they usually do. That’s why they need civilian oversight. That’s not liberal, in my view. That’s prudent".

Shrunk wrote:Just a minor point of clarification: It is the right to privacy that is compromised by the Canadian bill, not freedom of expression.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this topic, but you beat me to it. Might I suggest you move it to a thread of its own, as it doesn't really have to do with Holocaust denial?

Shrunk, usually we don't agree on anything, but this time yes: I do agree with your suggestion. So -- if the Mods have no objection -- I propose to open a new thread titled Freedom of expression in the Internet.