|
Holocaust Deniers Gather in Iran
From the pages of The New York Times
Read the article in its entirety (if the above link requires login or you don't want to click):
Can you believe this? How can people deny something as terrible as the Nazi's genocidal actions? Writing off minor bits of history is one thing, but claiming that 6 million Jews died of other means and not because the Nazis wanted them dead is outrageously ignorant. |
When a debate can't take place somewhere, it usually ends up taking place elsewhere. Same fucking thing, except you don't have any control over it anymore.
Denying Holocaust is a crime in my country. You can't even publish a book hinting at it. What this means to me is that having an objective point of view on that topic is impossible. |
What do you mean by having an objective point of view on that topic? It's a fact that the holocaust happened. The only alternative point of view would be denial.
|
If you can't make hypothetical considerations of this kind (which I think could be interpreted as "hinting at"), then you are hampering objectivity.
|
Quote:
I don't even want to enter the debate itself as, again, both you and I have only one voice telling us what happened and how. I'm just saying the fact the "what" and "how" are not arguable makes our Democratic countries look bad. I wish we could just leave all history to historians. |
I heard an Iranian ambassador say something along the lines of "We are testing the belief that the Holocaust occurred, and that if it did, exactly how many jews died in it's duration." So they aren't denying that it occurred outright, because otherwise they wouldn't entertain the possibility that it did in fact happen. I think they are contesting the figures too. People never seem to recall the huge numbers of gypsies, homosexuals, africans and other ethnicities that also perished in the death-camps.
|
Quote:
I still refuse to see how denying the holocaust is synomymous to an objective point of view. |
Quote:
|
...Wow..
I've heard of Holocaust deniers but...what about the people who survived those concentration camps? Were they disillusioned? Were they lying? To me, that's really hard to accept... Anyway, I'm a strong believer that the Holocaust did happen. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of the prisoners in the concentration camps died by starvation and typhus rather than gas chambers and firing squads, but I don't understand how others can see and think otherwise. Still, I'd like to read some papers and explanations why the Holocaust didn't happen according to our history. |
niki, I understand what you're saying, and I don't think that it should be illegal for anyone anywhere to be as loud as they want to discount the Holocaust.
But that's so besides the point now. Do you actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen? |
Quote:
And if I have to fucking write it for you brain rapists: No, I don't think the Holocaust didn't happen. |
Also, the distinction between a death from typhus and a death by gas chamber is completely immaterial. There WERE concentration camps in which lots and lots of people died, and the nazis put people there. It seems to me that either way they're culpable. I mean, sure you can squiggle around to make an argument that perhaps the fact they died indirectly of poor care means the nazis didn't actually commit a hate crime thus somewhat absolving (?) the jews of part of their victimization. But by that point you've as good as admitted that something bad happened, and really only exacerbate the situation by trying to quibble over details.
|
If they can get off saying that the Typhus wasn't intentional then the blankets we gave the Indians with smallpox was accidental, too.
|
true it'll be impossible to get close to life numbers, but the number "widely accepted" is in my opinion a highly exaggerated one. How the holocaust occured will definitely shed some light on the numbers. Yes it has occured, but was it as horrible as it's publicised? Who knows.
REGARDLESS ; not being able to discuss the subject objectively just because some laws prevent the mere mention of it is enough to arouse some suspicion(sp?) in me. Don't you find it corny too? Anything can be debated and argued upon, why not this? Double Post: Also, Avalokiteshvara's post is a perfectly sound opinion. This should be viewed with a logical approach no matter what. Double Post: Also, Avalokiteshvara's post is a perfectly sound opinion. This should be viewed with a logical approach, not a finger-pointing one, no matter what. |
So are there any transcripts of the conference?
|
Quote:
I'm just talking about the end of you post, btw. The rest are absolutely legitimate questions. I will just answer that the fact CryHavoc has actually researched a lot matters not in the end, since he's not allowed to have a different theory anyway. The fact *governments* and not historians had to make laws to basically say "there is the Holocaust that one shall not question, and then there are all those thousands of minor genocides" is what's truly disturbing, if you ask me. |
Quote:
I guess my point of view is exacerbated by the fact I live in a country where people like this David Irving aren't even allowed to exist. When an historical issue arises, usually by someone writing a book, what happens? People write other books, opposing facts to facts and detailing their sources. That's how it supposed to work in any non-dictatorial country. |
Quote:
Besides, and if I haven't made it clear already (sigh), my position in this thread is not to question historical facts concerning the Holocaust, but the way the issue is dealt with by governments and the reasons why it has to come to such extremes that such a meeting has to take place where it has. |
Would you rather have this gathering of Holocaust deniers take place somewhere in Europe?
Do you seriously believe the participants of this meeting to have "objective opinions" on the subject? It's a political instrument for Ahmadinejad and a welcome opportunity for extremists to spread their Antizionist and Neonazi propaganda. |
This is almost as bad as people denying we landed on moon and the Flat Earth Society. There are thousands of documents with the names of the victims. The Nazis were very thorough and kept alot of records. The concentration camps are still there and have been converted into museums. Allies soldiers have witnessed it as well and there are survivors.
I think the denial of the holocaust stems more from a dislike of Jews and wanting to discredit them. I wonder how would the Nazis of that day react to this. I bet they would livid at trying to disprove their 'accomplishments'. There is no real ground for this kind of discussion other than some predujuice propaganda against the Jews. It's completely asinine. |
My mother once said that the only good thing about the Nazis was how neatly they kept up with the paperwork regarding their atrocities and that only Germans could be that anal or for that matter stupid about formalities.
Anyway, I seriously doubt that even in Germany, a historian will get into trouble for discussing details about the Holocaust, if it is clear that his one and only agenda is the pursuit of historical fact. The major aspects are just not up for discussion because as BigHairyFeet already stated, the evidence is there and it is numerous. Nobody is going to get excited about the question whether there were 2000 or 2500 bodies in mass grave #469 as it does not change the bigger picture. Most people gathering in Iran for that congress and the people who are arrested for their publications regarding the Holocaust on the other hand want to change that bigger picture, not for the sake of historical fact but with an ideological or political agenda. So if this grave disregard of human dignity constitutes a serious crime in several countries, what is wrong with that? Having more broader laws to cover the denial of likewise undisputed atrocities would be the fairer approach, of course, but I certainly do not feel my freedom of speech to be impaired by the laws which exist. |
Quote:
Quote:
Let them speak, like any free citizen is free to, and have a horde of historian destroy all they write by opposing cold solid facts, and not some stinky censorship law. |
There are certain things that should not be covered under freedom of speech. Denying the Holocaust is one of them, because it's always connected with racism.
|
Quote:
|
Thread: The Holocaust is serious business
mindOverMatter: "But Hitler!" |
A policy like that is in place to cover a country's ass. Nevermind that many Nazis and xenophobic nationalists never left Germany after WW2, or that there is a large and growing Neo-Nazi movement in Germany nowadays. They have to have draconian laws like that in place to make it look like they're actually trying to atone for their infamous past. Genuine freedom of speech does not exist, in the same way that genuine equality didn't exist in "Animal Farm".
|
Obviously, the Holocaust did happen. Now should it be illegal to deny it? Is it any different than denying that we landed on the moon? Of course it is.
Example: Group 1 decides to deny that Wal-mart has driven Safeway out of business. Group 2 decides to deny that black people are human, and states that they are, in fact, not completely evolved into modern Homo Sapien, and they even get distinguished scientists to support their cause. Black people are then ostracized and even killed in major riots. Group 3, fifty years after group 2's evidence is proven wrong and agreed upon that their actions were inexcusable, decides to ignore the evidence and deny that this ever happened, saying that this is impossible, considering how much effort would have to be put into such an event. They claim that the black people are just trying to victimize themselves. Now, obviously, Group 1's denial isn't necessarily bad, Group 2's denial is hateful, Group 3's denial is also hateful because they defend Group 2's actions by willfully ignoring that they ever happened. So, since positions 2 and 3 are hateful, are they not worthy to be banned from being declared in public??? Crunchy Nachos probably said something like this in the time that I wrote it, but I'd really hate to erase all this after all the work I put into it... |
Quote:
You don't have to answer those questions, but you get my point. |
Quote:
A debate is something wherein there is reasonable doubt, right? Like saying "this might not be the case, THIS could have happened..." and possibly being right about it. Like a trial by jury where the evidence isn't substantial enough to put the plaintiff at the crime scene. Or like a scientific theory that cannot be %100 proven because there's no way to fully test the hypothesis. But the holocaust isn't a theory, like altruism or relativity, but it is fact like the wind blowing or the sky above us. It's there, it will always be there. Just like the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. Just like the Americans bombing Hiroshima years later. It happened and people died. Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to debate this; this debate shouldn't exist. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Any other questions? Seriously though, although I don't know if it's really a big issue here in the US, I support European laws forbidding nazi talk and holocaust denial. I assume those are against the laws because I heard it somewhere. I don't think it's a big deal here in the US because, although we have deniers and skinheads, we didn't have the holocaust here. I think it's incredibly offensive when people use "everyone has a right to their opinion" to defend deliberate, racist lying. It's an opinion if every nazi was a baby-raper or not; it's not an opinion that millions of jews died in goddamn ovens. lurker for super-perma-admin 2007 |
It's up for debate to PISS YOU OFF. There is no other reason. Of course they know that it happened, but just like there is a wave of Islamophobia spreading across Europe, with more and more European countries creating ever more brazenly discriminatory laws against certain mosque-visiting members of their populations, there is a wave of increased anger crossing the Middle East. You piss them off, they'll try to find a way to piss you off. It's really THAT simple.
Frankly, I don't think there should be a law against it anymore than there should be a law against teaching any religions or Creationism or anything else. There are plenty of people that think the moon-landings didn't occur. There are still some that believe the earth is flat. The most powerful man on earth still keenly awaits the return of Jesus Christ within his own lifetime and takes orders directly from some kind of phantom he calls "God". So many people died from all around the world during that terrible war. I guess they were big enough to grow beyond that horror and get on with their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...ies_by_country |
HOLD ON, THREAD
This is becoming a bit too much about DENYERS VS THE WORLD OF JUSTICE. Here's an important point out friend Ulysses rose for us just a page away: Quote:
|
Ok, since we're going back to page one, do I have to quote my own entry as well? (As it was written in reply to that notion, among other things.)
|
Quote:
I don't think it's how you settle things on long term, no. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
To be fair, niki, a lot of people in the US say that they are merely questioning the safety of abortions, for example, and then bust out a bunch of bullshit about how abortions will give you cancer. The same thing happens with evolution, with global warming, lots of things. Basically that's the reason for the cynicism, well that and
Quote:
|
As I said, but you people are deftly ignoring, the whole point is to piss you off. I'd say it's a glorious victory to Iran so far. Iranians are amongst the most highly educated populations in the world, and they inhabit lands where human civilisation first took root after thousands of years of nomadism; a country that was a seat of learning and scientific advancement for centuries. Their leader is a wily schemer who knows how to push your buttons. Do not make the mistake of assuming that they're stupid, because they are not. It is a (frankly not that subtle) attempt to get you riled up, and it succeeded.
If you are going to have laws that limit one's freedom of speech, let's play fair about it and restrict the freedom for people to say other inflammatory or obviously incorrect things, or not at all. Let's not play favourites when it suits us. |
Quote:
oh my god, that explains devilgobox! |
Quote:
We won't go back to lynchings not because there are laws in place to specifically stop an organisation intent on commiting those acts, but because there are already in place very old laws. MURDER IS A CRIME. That is more than enough to be able to lock these bastards up. The argument changes into whether or not a person should get a longer sentence for a "hate-crime". That has been up for debate here in the past, so I won't dredge it up again. Double Post: Quote:
I in no way ADVOCATE the decision of the Iranian government to question the holocaust, but if we claim to be so much better than them, let them mess around and have their fun. As I have said, their decisions whatever they turn out to be, are utterly inconsequential to the world at large. |
Quote:
|
A stupid debate in the Palace? Surprise surprise, and I wondered why nobody posts here any more.
You guys do know that this meeting is being attended by anti-Zionist Jews, right? Basically the biggest motive behind holocaust denial is to establish that the actual impact of the Holocaust doesn't justify Zionist agendas and the continued support of Israel. More specifically for Ahmadinejad, as Ulysses has pointed out, it's to raise the ire of Westerners, and it's worked well enough to start this retarded thread over a :whocares: event. I mean, christ, David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK and Louisiana politician attended the convention, and CNN is reporting it as if it's some kind of big deal. David Duke a Holocaust denier? I would've never thought! Nevermind here, that Rock is German, and attempting to atone for the sins of his Jew-gassing grandpa by convincing us very loudly that the Holocaust happened, or that several Western countries have strong Zionist lobbies which regardless of any central organization are nonetheless loud enough to get measures like the French censorship laws put into place. When Devo said "Your rights stop where my feelings begin" (go spacemoose), it was quite poignant, because I don't think you guys understand just how many "hurtful" opinions regarding the past there are to minority groups. If Radical Feminists controlled the country they'd probably outlaw any assertion of Universal Patriarchy, or if say, blacks became a vocal censorship lobby, then you could say bye-bye to Gone With the Wind and The North and South for their portrayal of the Plantation Myth. Nobody has the right to dictate what is and what isn't open for discussion, irregardless of how much imperical evidence is stacked against an opinion. It's the same reason I'm not closing this thread instantaneously for sheer retardedness, because it's more beneficial for the community to see you guys weep from your vaginas for all the poor Jews and Gypsies and Fags and Rubber Duckies that might get their feelings hurt because of what a couple of douchebags in Iran said about the Holocaust. There should never be limits to freedom of speech, period. Limiting one's entitlement to an opinion works sort of like the point/counterpoints to abortion. If you abort a baby you could be aborting the guy who cures cancer, consequently you could also be aborting the guy who kills 15 families with a bayonet in their homes. Draconian infringements on free expression didn't work forever for the Church, and there's nothing to suggest that outlawing Holocaust-denial actually suppresses discourse regarding the subject in any clear way. In fact, eliminating its discussion in the public sphere does more to help its survival, since there's no intellectual discourse that can use the imperical evidence you jerks keep yelling about against Holocaust-denial literature. Instead you've got sub-cultures sharing their views on the internet and festering outside the scrutiny of society at large. Has it ever occurred to you filthy Germans that outlawing the Nazi Party is the very reason Germany has such a problem with Neo-Nazism? Of course not, though, because prohibition works for drugs, right? Dumbasses. Quote:
|
Quote:
Also note that Holocaust deniers aren't actually prosecuted as criminals here, but rather kept from publishing books and holding public speeches about the issue. According to German law, these people are charged with slander or libel or something like that. I think it's only fair. Quote:
|
For BigHairyFeet :
You sir, are a moron. Did you even read what i said? Anything is subject to debate. What i'm advocating is the freedom to discuss anything. Do not twist my words. And what i said meant that i think THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for the deaths REGARDLESS of wether it was by burning, toxins, or just because of imprisonment. The Nazis ARE responsible. So in effect i was arguing AGAINST trying to locate the "real" reason for their death, because regardless of that reason, the nazis ARE responsible. I just hate exaggeration, and there's a possibility of exaggeration. It's not as flat-out proven as the earth being round, it's debatable. THE NUMBERS are debatable. Double Post: Quote:
Brady is basically saying what i have in mind but in greater detail. How anyone could take another point of view is beyond me. Aren't you all FOR freedom of speech? |
Quote:
I forget, of course, that Libertine values don't apply to Europe, just the populist ones. Quote:
Quote:
|
The NSDAP doesn't even exist anymore, Brady. And what sense would it make to form such a party if you can just join the NPD instead?
Also, most Germans agree that outlawing them is wrong. So don't sound like "we" Germans are to blame for it. |
The logical conclusion to Holocaust denial is that Holocaust survivors are either liars or wrong. Holocaust denial doesn't represent survivors, however. Holocaust denial is an opinion regarding an historical event, and doesn't constitute libel or slander unless the claim is being made that Holocaust survivors are dirty liars.
I am, of course, making this value judgement based on American laws where the Supreme Court established that the plaintiffs must prove malicious intent, and that no states accept libel cases on the behalf of groups. It may be ethnocentric, but then we're the country that respects freedom of expression the most on this planet, despite the hiccups, so I feel confident in saying that American perspective of libel is the most respectful of the freedom of expression. If Holocaust denial counts as libel in Germany, then it stands to reason that the same would apply to anti-semitism and political radicalism, since making derogatory remarks about Jews or SPD voters could constitute untruthful malicious statements concerning a group of people. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
There is a western law precedent that you can limit free speech, where doing so protects the ability of others to speak freely. i.e. you can limit horribly racist demonstrations, so that minorities do not feel so set-upon by the majority that they are afraid to speak their mind.
Therefore, a Holocaust-discussion bill might have made sense decades ago, where the temptation still existed to blame the Jews for every damn thing. It doesn't really matter much anymore. If Iran wants to play tit-for-tat for some newspaper cartoons like a little baby, and invite some number-crunchers from Mel Gibson's phonebook, whatever. I think* in the countries that are democratic enough to consider an anti-holocaust bill, anti-semitism is so dead that you don't need it anymore. I still agree with putting anti-holocaust gradeschool history teachers in jail, though. *feel free to correct if I'm wrong |
Quote:
Double Post: Quote:
There is no just sayin' when it comes to genocide. |
Quote:
Quote:
That's the precise problem that comes up when libel and slander apply to groups of people. There's no danger of misrepresentation because being a holocaust survivor isn't like wearing a yellow star or purple rectangle. By enforcing criminal libel you're making a form of expression illegal, and that doesn't fly with me at the very least. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Without criminal prosecution of slander and libel, there is no limitation to the freedom of speech at the governmental level. Quote:
Bitch please. Quote:
Irregardless of any logical leap, if a party isn't directly being misrepresented in a literature, then you have no grounds for a libel case, and no, body tattoos aren't like wearing the yellow stars, because Holocaust survivors wear the very long-sleeved clothing the fellow in your picture wear to hide them, in order to live normal lives without people pitying them all the time. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you wanted to point out legitimate limitations to the freedom of speech in the United States, then you could talk about the use of the Miller test for obscenity by the FCC to censor broadcast media or the use of the DMCA to silence criticism by offended minorities claiming their primary literature as intellectual property. That's what I have a beef with concerning freedom of speech in this country. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's really immaterial, though, because the French and German laws are cases of criminal libel, where any opinion on the matter other than the one that is state-sanctioned is considered illegal. |
Quote:
Should it be illegal for me to say that clouds are neat but the sky is green? Give me a break. Free speech IS free speech, and slander/libel laws don't have anything to do with it. |
Quote:
If all we are arguing about is how we should feel about certain things, such as free speech or the Holocaust, then why should I even bother providing a rationality for what I feel? Why can't I just form my subjective value judgments based on how I feel on a given day if there is nothing that commits me to a rational means of determining what is morally good or bad? Call it a gut intuition or a matter of personal taste, but it strikes me as incomprehensible that the only reason the Holocaust (or restricting free speech absolutely) is wrong is because I feel that it's wrong. Quote:
If freedom of speech means that we can say whatever we want, but we must pay the consequences for things that we say, then I agree that slander and libel have little to do with free speech. Roughly, we would be allowed to say whatever we want as long as we realize that we are responsible for what we say. Perhaps this discussion would go better if we came to a common definition of what 'free speech' refers to. Perhaps someone could come up with better definitions than the ones I came up with. At least we would be sure that we are all talking about the same thing. |
Quote:
Quote:
Freedom of speech here is ill-defined, but is generally interpreted as the right to say whatever you want without consequence. However, one can be penalized for the consequences of said speech, which is the danger of manslaughter and public unrest involved in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and the damages caused to an individual in cases of libel or slander. The government does not have the right to limit what can be said or printed, but can prosecute for crimes commited with the use of speech. I.E., people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but not censured. |
Quote:
And I don't have any idea why my thoughts are somehow "existential". I'm merely pointing out that if good and evil are completely subjective terms, then we cannot talk about them like we talk about other objective realities, such as some scientific phenomenon. It's good to know that we agree that the First Amendment is not a good definition. And as long as free speech is defined with the caveat of having to pay the consequences for our actions, then I'd agree that slander and libel have little to do with freedom of speech. On the other hand, I guess I'm tentative in regards to giving 'harm' a narrow definition. Does 'harm' extend beyond immediate physical harm or the destruction of character, or is 'harm' defined more broadly to include other types of harm i.e. moral harm or indirect harm, such as a correlation between certain types of speech and the promotion of violent behavior? Or, what about a conservative definition, where free speech is more subordinate to preserving traditional social institutions? |
From what I know of cases involving the Turner Diaries, and rock & roll censorship cases, there's never been a long-standing legislation against "indirect harm" because the writer is not considered responsible for the actions of the consumer of their literature or art.
Unlike "freedom of speech," freedom of press is fairly self-evident. |
After reviewing my previous position on censorship, I have realized that it's too 1984ish. However, I do not think that particular view should be encouraged as being "objective".
|
Niki never said that Holocaust denial was an objective view, only that suppressing the opinion eliminates the possibility of perceiving it objectively.
|
Oh, I'm not saying that Niki said this, so this time I'm not trying to be argumentative.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Which are we discussing: what the law is or what the law ought to be? The existence of case law against alternate definitions of harm seems to address a different question than the one that we were previously discussing, mainly, what limits, if any, should be placed on free speech? The existence of a law does not necessarily establish the existence of an "ought" or a "should". |
The way the law is, is reflected in the spirit of the law. The spirit being, one is entitled to say or print whatever they want.
There shouldn't be government-endorsed censorship in either America or Germany and France, irregardless of content. |
If these people were violating someone's rights by denying the holocaust, then there would be a valid reason for censoring them. However, since they aren't harming anyone by espousing this nonsense, and there is a mountain of evidence discrediting their claims, I think it's best to just let them talk their shit and let them expose themselves as the idiots that they are.
|
Evelyn Hall summed up my position on this issue and others like it more eloquently and neatly than I could ever have wished to have done.
|
Would you care to tell us what Evelyn Hall said, or just sit there and tell us nothing?
No matter, I've done it for you: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Why do Freedom of Speech detractors always have more strawmen than Kansas?
Death threats fall under harassment, which can be met with restraining orders. I have to apply for an order, of course, and you're not actually going to be put in jail for what you've said unless you're violating a court-ordered mandate, e.g. the aforementioned restraining order. You are punished for your actions, not for your words. Stop being a dipshit. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.