why is denying the holocaust against the law?

[KingMamba]

@Desert Fox should join this debate.

 

[janon]

Dear God! You getting excited again arent you? Read my post regarding Germans and their record keeping skills!

Yea the thread is about why selectively about the holocaust is the freedom of speech enforced?

Yes it is. But it is not about debating whether the holocaust took place or not. It is about freedom of peech, not the holocaust.

 

[Cherokee]

I would say if Jews themselves dispute the Holocaust then it cannot be fact unless proven to be, the supporters of holocaust want everyone to believe it happened and not question otherwise. I am not saying it did not happen however if it is fact they should not be scared of people talking about it no?

People are not scared to talk about it . There are no holocaust deniers but people who dispute magnitude of it .

 

[KingMamba]

People are not scared to talk about it . There are no holocaust deniers but people who dispute magnitude of it .

The euro countries who have a ban on the topic are scared to talk about it. Their ban is supposed to be against those who deny but the truth is just questioning numbers can get you into trouble as a potential denier.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

Has the West put millions of Muslims in camps and put them to death there? Name one incident were West has put one million Muslims in prison camps and killed them there.

What is your point?

Also, just because West hasn't done it, it doesn't mean it is not capable of doing it.

 

[Basel]

dude Majorities are played in major way not minorities . Just look around both in India and Pakistan .

There are many ways to destabilize countries and minorities are very good one, as world rapidly focus and cry that they are mistreated. If a minority dies in Pakistan or India whole world started crying did this happen when majority effected like that, no.

 

[Cherokee]

The euro countries who have a ban on the topic are scared to talk about it. There ban is supposed to be against those who deny but the truth is just questioning numbers can get you into trouble as a potential denier.

can you give me a link where disputing numbers in euro countries got anyone in trouble ??

 

[qamar1990]

@Cherokee @Akheilos @Abu Nasar @KingMamba
the evidence for the holocaust are about the same as evidence for UFO sightings

 

[Indischer]

@Desert Fox should join this debate.

And @DESERT FIGHTER too.

 

[janon]

Most of the info came from a journal of a lady (Anne Frank) "believed" to have lived and survived the holocaust...how? no one knows nor dared question....

@Akheilos : By the way, Anne Frank did not survive the holocaust. She dies in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Her diary was published years later by her father, who was the only one to survive. One 13 year old's diary is not how history gets documented. All of the govts writings, orders, speeches, judgements are all available to us. As are some of the people who gave those orders, the ones who carried out those orders, and the ones who were victims.

 

[Dubious]

Facts are immutable beliefs are not . I can prove holocaust but i cannot prove heaven/hell( no one can) . So heaven/hell is belief ad holocaust is fact . If a person "believes" that his belief is a fact that the matter of fact is its a belief and not a fact .

Wrong . Freedom of speech is limited by responsibility of speech (Hate speech law) in all the countries which have this law .

Very narrow

EU definition:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.


They also have Art 10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Legal Explanations

The right guaranteed in paragraph 1 corresponds to the right guaranteed in Article 9 of the ECHR and, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, has the same meaning and scope. Limitations must therefore respect Article 9(2) of the Convention, which reads as follows: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."


EU Charter - Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

@Akheilos : By the way, Anne Frank did not survive the holocaust. She dies in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Her diary was published years later by her father, who was the only one to survive. One 13 year old's diary is not how history gets documented. All of the govts writings, orders, speeches, judgements are all available to us. As are some of the people who gave those orders, the ones who carried out those orders, and the ones who were victims.

Yea bt it isnt called father's diary now is it!

So why tell me this? I brought in Anne not coz of her but her diary...

It didnt document the historical effects but it was the key to the play that sent a shudder through Europe and led to the adjustment of the laws!

 

[qamar1990]

Prove to me holocaust did not happen .

"
prove to me it happened in this thread and i want to see how far you get lol.
i do believe it already but I'm going to forget that and ill let you prove to us if it happened or not.
and honest to god ill be neutral."



dude Majorities are played in major way not minorities . Just look around both in India and Pakistan .

the burden proof lies with the person making the claim.
your making a claim that the holocaust happened what are your evidence?

ill make a claim that aliens exist and that ufos visit us, and ill prove it to once you prove that the holocaust happened
@500 the challenge is for you as well or who ever else.


( i do believe in the holocaust btw but for the sake of argument i will act as if i don't or i don't even know about it)

 

[Indus Falcon]

Having a look at this thread might answer a lot of questions!!

The Jewish Question: A Problem without a Solution

 

[Cherokee]

Very narrow

EU definition:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.


They also have Art 10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Legal Explanations

The right guaranteed in paragraph 1 corresponds to the right guaranteed in Article 9 of the ECHR and, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, has the same meaning and scope. Limitations must therefore respect Article 9(2) of the Convention, which reads as follows: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."


EU Charter - Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

Hate speech

Across the European Union, hate speech laws, and in particular their interpretation, vary with regard to how they impact on the protection for freedom of expression. In some countries, notably Poland and France, hate speech laws do not allow enough protection for free expression. The Council of the European Union has taken action on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by promoting use of the criminal law within nation states in its 2008 Framework Decision. Yet, the Framework Decision failed to adequately protect freedom of expression in particular on controversial historical debate.

Throughout European history, hate speech has been highly problematic, from the experience and ramifications of the Holocaust through to the direct incitement of ethnic violence via the state run media during wars in the former Yugoslavia. However, it is vital that hate speech laws are proportionate in order to protect freedom of expression.

On the whole, the framework for the regulation of hate speech is left to the national laws of EU member states, although all member states must comply with Articles 14 and 17 of the ECHR.[1] A number of EU member states have hate speech laws that fail to protect freedom of expression –- in particular in Poland, Germany, France and Italy.

Article 256 and 257 of the Polish Criminal Code criminalise individuals who intentionally offend religious feelings. The law criminalises public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation. Article 54 of the Polish Constitution protects freedom of speech but Article 13 prohibits any programmes or activities that promote racial or national hatred. Television is restricted by the Broadcasting Act, which states that programmes or other broadcasts must “respect the religious beliefs of the public and respect especially the Christian system of values”. In 2010, two singers, Doda and Adam Darski, where charged with violating the criminal code for their public criticism of Christianity.[2] France prohibits hate speech and insult, which are deemed to be both “public and private”, through its penal code[3] and through its press laws[4]. This criminalises speech that may have caused no significant harm whatsoever to society, which is disproportionate. Singer Bob Dylan faces the possibility of prosecution for hate speech in France. The prosecutor’s office in Paris confirmed that Dylan has been placed under [5] but these provisions are not absolute. In a landmark case in 2012, three men were convicted after distributing leaflets in Derby depicting a mannequin in a hangman’s noose and calling for the death sentence for homosexuality. The European Court of Human Rights ruled on this issue in its landmark judgment Vejdeland v. Sweden, which upheld the decision reached by the Swedish Supreme Court to convict four individuals for homophobic speech after they distributed homophobic leaflets in the lockers of pupils at a secondary school. The applicants claimed that the Swedish Supreme Court’s decision to convict them constituted an illegitimate interference with their freedom of expression. The ECtHR found no violation of Article 10, noting even if there was, the interference served a legitimate aim, namely “the protection of the reputation and rights of others”.

The widespread criminalisation of genocide denial is a particularly European legal provision. Ten EU member states criminalise either Holocaust denial, or the denial of crimes committed by the Nazi and/or Communist regimes. At EU level, Germany pushed for the criminalisation of Holocaust denial, culminating in its inclusion from the 2008 EU Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. Full implementation of the Framework Decision was blocked by Britain, Sweden and Denmark, who were rightly concerned that the criminalisation of Holocaust denial would impede historical inquiry, artistic expression and public debate.

Beyond the 2008 EU Framework Decision, the EU has taken specific action to deal with hate speech in the Audiovisual Media Service Directive. Article 6 of the Directive states the authorities in each member state “must ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual media services provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality”.

Hate speech legislation, particularly at European Union level, and the way this legislation is interpreted, must take into account freedom of expression in order to avoid disproportionate criminalisation of unpopular or offensive viewpoints or impede the study and debate of matters of historical importance.

[1] ‘Article 14 – discrimination’ contains a prohibition of discrimination; ‘Article 17 – abuse of rights’ outlines that the rights guaranteed by the Convention cannot be used to abolish or limit rights guaranteed by the Convention.

[2] The police charged vocalist and guitarist Adam Darski of Polish death metal band Behemoth with violating the Criminal Code for a performance in 2007 in Gdynia during which Darski allegedly called the Catholic Church “the most murderous cult on the planet” and tore up a copy of the Bible; singer Doda, whose real name is Dorota Rabczewska, was charged with violating the Criminal Code for saying in 2009 that the Bible was “unbelievable” and written by people “drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs”.

[3] Article R625-7

[4] Article 24, Law on Press Freedom of 29 July 1881

[5] The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A[12] to criminalising attempting to “stir up religious hatred.” A further provision to protect freedom of expression (Section 29J) was added: “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

 

[janon]

@Cherokee @Akheilos @Abu Nasar @KingMamba
the evidence for the holocaust are about the same as evidence for UFO sightings

No it isn't. The orders of the government to send Jews to concentration camps, the judges who gave those orders were all alive after WW2. This was not a one time event, it took place over a decade in a place that had radio, press and even video recordings.