Should Holocaust Denial be Banned?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Should Holocaust Denial be Banned?

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:13 am)

by Sabine Seifert

http://www.eurotopics.net/en/magazin/ho ... tleugnung/

In the battle against right-wing extremism German
Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries wants an
EU-wide ban on denial of the Holocaust. But does
such a ban make sense? And wouldn't it encroach on freedom of expression?

Holocaust denial is the subject of heated debate,
not only in Europe but all over the world. In
January 2007 the United Nations General Assembly passed
a resolution
condemning denial of the Holocaust.

As current holder of the rotating EU presidency,
Germany is seeking to harmonise European laws on
Holocaust denial. Pointing to Germany's
"historical obligation" and under the auspices of
a "draft resolution for combating racism and
xenophobia,"
German Justice Minister
Brigitte Zypries hopes to push through an EU-wide ban.

For years now the question of whether such a ban
makes sense has fuelled debate. The answer varies
from country to country and from legal system to
legal system. While proponents of the ban want to
establish inviolable limits, opponents claim it
would only give a few "nutcases" the attention
they crave - and infringe too much on freedom of speech.

The liberal stance of the British

British journalist and historian Timothy
Garton Ash warned on 18 January 2007 in the
British daily the Guardian that "the approach
advocated by the German justice minister also
reeks of the nanny state. It speaks in the name
of freedom but does not trust people to exercise freedom responsibly. "

By adopting this position Ash is upholding a
liberal Anglo-Saxon tradition that is
diametrically opposed to prevalent opinion in
Germany and Austria. For in these countries the
experience of their own historical errors is of
fundamental importance and is inextricably bound
up with the need to prevent a recurrence and make amends.

Nine EU member states have already criminalised
Holocaust denial: Austria, Germany, France,
Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Belgium, the Czech
Republic and Lithuania. Austria has the toughest
laws. As early as 1945 it introduced a "ban law"
which made Holocaust denial punishable by law on
the grounds that it "reactivated National
Socialism". In Germany it wasn't until 1994 that
the Federal High Court exempted denial of the
Holocaust from the basic right of freedom of expression.


Meanwhile, in Great Britain and Denmark neither
trivialising nor even negating the Holocaust are criminal offences.

The Irving case

When British historian and Holocaust denier
David Irving went on trial in Austria last year,
British journalists expressed ambivalent
emotions: "Today David Irving, the infamous and
discredited
British historian, languishes in an
Austrian jail. Just writing that sentence makes
me feel happy
," British columnist Ben
Macintyre confessed on January 20, 2006 in the
Times, but added: "The next sentence is much
harder to write. He should be released."

The Austrians took a different view of the
matter. Those who want to grant neo-Nazis freedom
of expression, wrote Hans
Rauscher on 21 February 2006 in the Austrian
daily the Standard, are "mostly people who
haven't had much to do with them. (...) The
popular argument that 'crimes of opinion' can't
be punished is unfounded.
'Holocaust deniers'
like David Irving have no 'opinion'. They know –
or they can if they want to – that these terrible
crimes were committed and how they were
committed. But they want to deny them, trivialise
them, make them politically acceptable."


A state-controlled view of history

The Irving trial perfectly illustrated the
conflicting lines of argument. Irving was
sentenced to three years in prison and then
released on probation in November 2006 following appeal proceedings.

Although Holocaust denial is a punishable offence
in Germany, there were those there who criticised
the proposal to criminalise it throughout the EU.
Several German historians, among them Eberhard
Jäckel and Götz
Aly, as well as the German-American Konrad
Jarausch, voiced their concern. In an interview
with Deutschlandradio on 1 February 2007, Jäckel
called for a scientific rather than a legal
confrontation with Holocaust deniers.


In a commentary piece published in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 12 March 2007,
Reinhard Müller, a journalist, expressed the
following view: "Comments on historical events
should not be a subject for penal law unless the
objective is to make certain issues taboo or
prescribe a certain way of thinking... Historical
facts are fixed, but what we know of them and how
we judge them is subject to constant change. In
this respect both Orhan Pamuk, who was prosecuted
in Turkey for insisting that the Turks committed
genocide against the Armenians, and the British
historian David Irving, who was imprisoned in
Vienna for denying the Holocaust, were the
victims of a misguided penal law that seeks to define attitudes."


Should denying the Soviet occupation also be banned?

Brigitte Zypries' initiative has raised an
awkward question: If denial of the crimes of the
Holocaust is to be made punishable by law across
Europe, shouldn't the same rules apply to other historical events?


Latvian journalist Bens
Latkovskis posed the following question in the 12
January 2007 edition of Delfi: "[...] if our
'friends' in the west would like to see that
happen, why not add a few other issues to the
mix, such as a ban on denial of the Soviet
occupation? That would effectively end the
exasperating debate about whether Latvia was occupied or not in 1940."


So we're not just talking about the Holocaust
here, but about a fundamental problem that could
take on absurd dimensions
, as Timothy
Garton Ash pointed out on 20 October 2006 in the
Guardian: "Let the British parliament now make it
a crime to deny that it was Russians who murdered
Polish officers at Katyn in 1940. Let the Turkish
parliament make it a crime to deny that France
used torture against insurgents in Algeria. Let
the German parliament pass a bill making it a
crime to deny the existence of the Soviet gulag.
Let the Irish parliament criminalise denial of
the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. "


For the freedom of history

This scenario may seem exaggerated but such
initiatives already exist.
On 12 October 2006 the
French parliament passed a law that made denial of the
genocide against the Armenians a punishable
offence. The Turkish government and some members
of the opposition were angered, and the EU also
criticised the new French law.

The Armenian genocide law is the latest of a
series of French laws that deal with historical
issues such as the Holocaust, the history of
slavery and colonialism. French historians have
protested "against political interference in
historical matters";
Liberté
pour l'histoire!" (Freedom for history) endorses
the appeal of eminent French historians,
including Pierre Nora, Pierre Vidal-Naquet,
Jean-Pierre Azema and Michel Winock.

Pierre Nora has described the 1990 French law
that criminalised the denial of the Holocaust as
the beginning of state interference in the
sovereign field of historical research.
In a
programme broadcast on 30 January 2006, he told
TV journalist Miriam
Carbe: "This was the beginning of an official
version of history. This path, which was taken
with the best intentions, has led to more and
more groups wanting their interpretation of
history to be prescribed by law."


But representatives of human rights organisations
and memorial sites take a different view. On 2
May 2006, Francois
de Smet, vice-president of Belgium's Movement
against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenopohobia
(MRAX), wrote in La Libre Belgique: "One cannot
fight racism without a constant reminder of what
it leads to in its terminal phase: the physical
annihilation of the other because he is the
other. This is why revisionism amounts to a
legitimate restriction on freedom of expression:
by allowing someone, in the future, to freely
accept or deny the existence of the genocide of
the Jews, Tutsis and Armenians inevitably helps
justify, indirectly, the ideology that allowed these massacres to occur."

A consensus resolution

On April 19/20 the European Council will discuss
and vote on the draft resolution for combating
racism and xenophobia. Only if there is a
unanimous vote in its favour will it be adopted.

Austrian journalist Robert
Misik sums up the situation as follows in the 31
January 2007 edition of the tageszeitung: "There
is no single approach to dealing with Holocaust
deniers and fans of Nazi insignia that is
entirely satisfactory for all democracies. .. Each
variant has its - historical - justification,
which may differ according to time and place.
However, it is a good thing that the banning
approach is not becoming a generalised 'European policy'."

Sabine Seifert

Sabine Seifert is an editor for euro|topics. She
studied German studies and History before going
on to work as a cultural editor at the tageszeitung ...
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."

"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"

C.G. Jung

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:44 pm)

My favourite quote:

But representatives of human rights organisations and memorial sites take a different view. On 2 May 2006, Francois de Smet, vice-president of Belgium’s Movement against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenopohobia (MRAX), wrote in La Libre Belgique: “One cannot fight racism without a constant reminder of what it leads to in its terminal phase: the physical annihilation of the other because he is the other. This is why revisionism amounts to a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression: by allowing someone, in the future, to freely accept or deny the existence of the genocide of the Jews, Tutsis and Armenians inevitably helps justify, indirectly, the ideology that allowed these massacres to occur.


All those “anti-racist”, etc. organizations in Europe and elsewhere are, of course, nothing but special interest groups operating under false pretenses, and thus can be compared with the plethora of communist front outfits in the West during the days of the Cold War. Their aims are precisely the opposite of their loud proclamations. They want to delegitimize and outlaw any opposition that Whites might present against their ongoing dispossession, race-replacement, and biological genocide. In point of fact, they’re the most disingenuous, lying, and racist (i.e., anti-White) bodies in existence. The ludicrous, frenzied gesticulations towards the holocau$t happen to be the biggest weapon in their arsenal.
"The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they did not find what they were seeking."



"The Seven Sermons to the Dead"



C.G. Jung

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9682
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:53 pm)

friedrich braun wrote:My favourite quote:

But representatives of human rights organisations and memorial sites take a different view. On 2 May 2006, Francois de Smet, vice-president of Belgium’s Movement against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenopohobia (MRAX), wrote in La Libre Belgique: “One cannot fight racism without a constant reminder of what it leads to in its terminal phase: the physical annihilation of the other because he is the other. This is why revisionism amounts to a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression: by allowing someone, in the future, to freely accept or deny the existence of the genocide of the Jews, Tutsis and Armenians inevitably helps justify, indirectly, the ideology that allowed these massacres to occur.


All those “anti-racist”, etc. organizations in Europe and elsewhere are, of course, nothing but special interest groups operating under false pretenses, and thus can be compared with the plethora of communist front outfits in the West during the days of the Cold War. Their aims are precisely the opposite of their loud proclamations. They want to delegitimize and outlaw any opposition that Whites might present against their ongoing dispossession, race-replacement, and biological genocide. In point of fact, they’re the most disingenuous, lying, and racist (i.e., anti-White) bodies in existence. The ludicrous, frenzied gesticulations towards the holocau$t happen to be the biggest weapon in their arsenal.


Take note that none of these 'anti-racist', 'multi-ethnic' organizations speak out against judeo-supremacist behavior in racist, ethnic cleansing 'Israel'. Revealing.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

IlluSionS667
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 8:46 am

Postby IlluSionS667 » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon May 21, 2007 6:55 am)

Hannover wrote:Take note that none of these 'anti-racist', 'multi-ethnic' organizations speak out against judeo-supremacist behavior in racist, ethnic cleansing 'Israel'. Revealing.

- Hannover


Of course, not. Only people of European descendance can be racists, don't you know? How can you, of all people, blame God's chosen ones of such a thing?! :roll:

The scary part of such ridiculous statements as those I just made, is the fact that millions actually buy them with ease...
All things are subject to interpretation. Whatever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not of truth - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Should Holocaust Denial be Banned?

Postby Hektor » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:14 am)

friedrich braun wrote:by Sabine Seifert

http://www.eurotopics.net/en/magazin/ho ... tleugnung/

....
British journalist and historian Timothy Garton Ash warned on 18 January 2007 in the British daily the Guardian that "the approach advocated by the German justice minister also reeks of the nanny state. It speaks in the name of freedom but does not trust people to exercise freedom responsibly. "....



Here he is talking:

For the avoidance of any doubt, as someone who's formative experiences were in studying modern German history and then in contemporary Central Europe, the memory of the Holocaust is a defining experience of my own life and my own view of the world. In some sense, I think that everything we have been trying to do in Europe since 1945, in a broader sense, everything we have been trying to do in building a liberal international order, is an answer to the memory of the Holocaust and of course of the Gulag. It is that "never again"!
Read more at http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-e ... of-history

The first two minutes explains quite well why even intelligent people may believe in the Holocaust. It's part of their identity in some sense. They simply will reject critique of their evidence and dismiss contrary evidences.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests