Further to the question below, should holocaust denial be a crime?
flip_flop Tue 07/10/08 08:42
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
only a crime of pig-ignorance. the facts are there, a few survivors are left and the camps still stand holding their terrible evidence.
I don't feel denial should be a criminal matter,but it may be linked to other criminal matters, hatred/ inciting, etc..
|
|
|
I don't think so.
There have been lots of awful episodes in history.
If it became illegal to say that one of them hadn't happened, then there would soon be pressure to apply the same law to other atrocities.
In the end, the only permitted view of history would be the view that was pre-approved by the Government.
And it is that sort of situation which allowed the Holocaust to happen in the first place - the obligation of the people to follow the approved line, and not to challenge it.
If people have beliefs like that, it's better to let them tell us all, so that we know who they are, and we can laugh at their daft ideas.
|
|
|
My high priestess JoggerJayne is correct here, It's the thin end of the wedge, it's all part of freedom of thought/speech, believe and think what you like, there will always be numpties who believe the incredible, accept it. The wisdom of the Geezer is strong today.
|
|
|
I don’t agree with it at all. If I don’t believe about the scale of holocaust then why should I be forced to believe in it.
|
|
|
yeah well keyplus about this sort of subject your credibilty is very limited, I suppose 9/11 didn't happen either eh?
|
|
|
nobody's forcing you to believe anything, keyplus. And holocaust denial is not a crime in Britain. However, there are plenty of curbs on free speech. It is only one of many freedoms and where they conflict (eg my freedom to insult you vs your freedom not to be insulted) something always has to give.
|
|
|
I have the freedom to insult you for what you just posted keyplus, but I won't lower myself to that level.
|
|
|
it is illegal to wear a swastika badge in germany will they be asking the british police to arrest any hells angels.
what about the old religious monuments, will they pull them down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
|
|
|
Only people who were present at the time can say with 100% certainty that a particular event happened. The rest of us rely on second hand information, the reliability of which varies enormously.
There is no doubt in my mind that large numbers of Jews were exterminated by Hitler’s regime. I am about 99.99% certain because I have examined the reports and film material that has been presented to me and formed a view. But it is only my opinion, I cannot be 100% sure.
Some people have done the same and arrived at a different conclusion. Should they be prosecuted for their opinion? I think not. The measure in Germany and Austria is said to be in place to prevent “hate crime”. However, there is a vast difference between hating people for what they are, and hating them for what they believe.
The EU is seeking to harmonise the criminal justice system across the member states without the consent of the participant people. Its ultimate aim is to eradicate the individuality of those member states. Germany and Austria have their own reasons for having the offence of holocaust denial on their statute books. The UK has decided it does not have sufficient reason. The European Arrest Warrant has now muddied the waters between the legislation provided by each individual state.
It is not holocaust deniers or racial bigots that are the biggest threat to harmony in the EU. It is the federal project itself which refuses to recognise that legitimate differences exist between nation states.
|
|
|
I don't believe that denial od The Holocaust should be an offence - because, as already stated, where do we draw the line? Do we prosecute people because they don;t believe in God? The Man In The Moon? Extreme examples, but the principle is there.
Freedom of speech is a vital foundation of our society, but it comes with penalties, as all freedoms do. Surely it is better to allow the deiners to deny, and be seen for the close-minded bigots they are, rather than making them principled martyrs of a dubious cause.
Most nonsense, if ignored, goes away.
|
|
|
you can always draw a line with ease in empty ground, and there is a huge amount of empty ground between the holocaust and any other crime in western Europe, ever. It is by far the worst. Denial is illegal in Germany so that it cannot be used to stir up Nazism again, which seems to me a good thing. Or do people think that if Hitler and Goebbels were alive today they should have freedom of speech? They did in the 30s and look where it got us.
|
|
|
The you can't be 100% sure argument is a load of tosh and I'm surprised to hear it from New Judge.
You can't be 100% sure of anything - even things you've personally witnessed. There's reams of examples of genuinely mistaken witness evidence which he should know better than most.
You have to ask yourself who the victim of such a crime would be.
There's a case that it's tantamount to inciting racial hatred - but we already have a crime for that so it's unnecessary.
I do love the way though that NJ can make any issue however obscure an damning indictment of the EU.
Very impressive.
But if we end up with such a crime simply because it's one in Austria I'll eat my proverbial hat!
There has always been scope for national circumstances to determine cases in the EU which is why you still need a passport to travel abroad, why we do not use the Euro etc.
And despite the feverred paranoia of the little Englander camp that's going to remain the case
|
|
|
No, jake, I did not say that all people present at an event can always be 100% sure. I said that only those present can be 100% sure. Among those there will certainly be some who are unsure and some who think they are sure but who are genuinely mistaken. My point is that people not present cannot be 100% sure. As far as the holocaust goes, that includes most people alive today.
As far as taking an “obscure issue” and making it a damning indictment of the EU goes, this is not an obscure issue, much as government ministers would like it to be. It is fundamental to this country’s justice system that one cannot be arrested or punished for activities that are not specifically contrary to UK law. Parliament received an assurance from the Home Office Minister that this would not occur when concerns were raised when the EAW legislation was being processed. Now we see how hollow those words were.
The EU does not need me to make “damning indictments” about its activities. The federation makes an amply good job itself and many people are well able to see for themselves exactly where it is leading. You may well be willing to submit your behaviour to the scrutiny of foreign legislatures, and be prepared for arrest and punishment by them if you step out of line. But I and many other “Little Englanders” are quite content that the legislation that has been passed by the UK Parliament is sufficiently robust to moderate our behaviour.
|
|
|
I am ...
High Priestess of the Church of the Latter Day Geezer.
|
|
|
Of course it should not be a crime, and if it was on what level would it be? Shoplifting, Burglary, Bank robbery, Manslaughter, Murder, how serious?
Would it be a crime to deny Darwins theory of evolution? after all it was only one man's theory 150 years ago.
Would it also be a crime to deny the world is round?
One thing that always mystifies me regarding the Holocaust and it is this,
There is a piece of film footage that is shown over and over again : There is a boy standing in the doorway of a railway truck, and he has got his arm stretched out helping to pull someone into the truck. There is nothing unusual in that one might say but, the next scene is shot from the interior of the truck, once again showing the boy helping someone into the truck.
If a German soldier had filmed this boy, do you think he would have then got into a truck full of Jews to take the interior shots? And no Jew would have been allowed to take a movie camera aboard the train.
|
|
|
A German cameraman taking interior shots from inside the truck sounds perfectly plausible to me.
|
|
|
For one such as you Lad, who lives in a perpetual world of fantasy, anything is plausible.
|
|
|
I wasn't having a pop at you. It genuinely sounds plausible. Why doesn't it to you? Please explain.
|
|
|
The question is now merely academic anyway (as are many wher EU legislation overrides UK law).
As I have tried to explain, the matter is a crime in some "member states" and this means that people are liable to be arrested and charged with the offence in other "member states" even though the activty may not be illegal there.
For those who shout "baloney", just look at what has happened to Gerald Toben. He is now in custody awaiting an extradition hearing.
|
|
|
I won't join in this very interesting debate, except to say, as a Jew myself, and in answer to the question,
No.
|
|
Loans | Fast Loans | Debt Consolidation | Loans | Cell Phones
