I can't favor legislation to tell people how to think.
They also stressed that the wording was designed to avoid criminalising comical plays or films about the Holocaust such as the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni’s prize-winning Life is Beautiful . The text expressly upholds countries’ constitutional traditions relating to the freedom of expression.
Excellent move by the European Union.
Excellent move by the European Union. The only groups that use this rubbish in Europe are the BNP, National Front, and other neo-fascists who do their best to incite riots and harm the public anyway.
It is already law in many European nations and:QuoteThey also stressed that the wording was designed to avoid criminalising comical plays or films about the Holocaust such as the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni’s prize-winning Life is Beautiful . The text expressly upholds countries’ constitutional traditions relating to the freedom of expression.
The law has been in place in West Germany (now Germany) for years and has never led to "thought crime" or any other absurd extremist notion.
They will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes†when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.
West Germany (now Germany) has had this law for many years and is there "thought crime" in that country? Of course not.
Holocaust denier arrested in AustriaArticle (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2005/11/18/holocaust_denier_arrested_in_austria/)
HARTBERG, Austria Nov. 18 (UPI) -- A writer who claims the Nazi gas chambers were a fiction has been arrested in Austria on a 16-year-old warrant.
David Irving was picked up in Hartberg after police received a tip that he was in the country, the Times of London reported. He had gone to Austria to address a far-right group.
Irving was considered a serious historian of the Nazi era until 1988, when he first emerged as a Holocaust denier. In 2000, he lost a libel suit in London when a judge found that he had falsified history. He has also been fined in Germany.
They will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes†when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.
That seems rather specific. Austrian law is what it is, yet it is not EU law.
So, Js, are you going to be interviewing for the position of deciding what does and doesn't incite hatred? And if it's egregious rhetoric aimed at the "majority", that's perfectly ok then, right?
Do you have any idea how bad an idea this is. This isn't yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. This is some organization body deciding what is and isn't "inciting hatred". This is precisely what Plane & ami have been referining, the road to the thought police. And you don't have a problem with that?? :-\
The Austrian law is nearly identical to the German law, which you were defending, seeming to claim that arresting and imprisoning someone for just speaking an incorrect opinion would not happen.
Neither of which are examples of the EU law.
West Germany (now Germany) has had this law for many years and is there "thought crime" in that country? Of course not.
Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?
So in your all's estimation it is not feasible for reasonable people or judges to determine if condoning genocide has led to a riot?
Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?
Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail. However, member states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order.
Officials said the wording was carefully designed to avoid criminalising films or plays about genocide, or discouraging academic research.
The text of the decision says the new rules will not modify the obligation to respect fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association. Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.
So in your all's estimation it is not feasible for reasonable people or judges to determine if condoning genocide has led to a riot?
QuoteThe Austrian law is nearly identical to the German law, which you were defending, seeming to claim that arresting and imprisoning someone for just speaking an incorrect opinion would not happen.
Neither of which are examples of the EU law.
Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?
*sigh* Project your American view elsewhere please.
OK.QuoteUnder the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail. However, member states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order.QuoteOfficials said the wording was carefully designed to avoid criminalising films or plays about genocide, or discouraging academic research.
As long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.QuoteThe text of the decision says the new rules will not modify the obligation to respect fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association. Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6573005.stm)
*sigh*
Project your American view elsewhere please.
Keep in mind Js, this isn't supporting the notion of yelling "Let's start a riot, because we hate those f'ing (fill in the blank)."
As long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.
Seems to me that they could have learned this particular lesson long ago from how poorly the enforcement of orthodoxy on Gallileo turned out.
QuoteKeep in mind Js, this isn't supporting the notion of yelling "Let's start a riot, because we hate those f'ing (fill in the blank)."
On the contrary, that seems to be the very notion that you, Ami, and Plane are supporting. Starting a riot does not have to be that implicit (it rarely is) but even the United States has laws against it.
I really don't understand why you are having a difficult time with this (especially you Sirs, someone who has supported wiretapping, overseas CIA prisons, and even certain degrees of torture!)
QuoteAs long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.
Plane, do you honestly believe that European countries run their film industries this way?QuoteSeems to me that they could have learned this particular lesson long ago from how poorly the enforcement of orthodoxy on Gallileo turned out.
Your analogy would conclude that the Holocaust deniers were correct all along. (Sort of, actually Galileo's trial has been somewhat susceptible to myth. Much of it had to do with politics of the day and the many enemies he made. Heliocentrism was never held as heretical by the Church ;) ).
This has always been about supporting the right for someone to hold a POV that you might find absolutely reprehensible, and even say it publically.
No, the people who procicuted Gallileo were quite sure that he was wrong , and that he had no right to spread such error so they threatened him with severe consequences unless he recanted
QuoteThis has always been about supporting the right for someone to hold a POV that you might find absolutely reprehensible, and even say it publically.
Which is not in conflict Sirs. The EU Law clearly leaves this up to the nations and even says that: "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order." Why do you have a problem with that? Please tell me what is wrong with that.
My "problem" is in your own response. "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order..."
Which means they can also choose not to, and instead choose simply to crimimalize language that someone(s) decide is simply hateful, MINUS public order disturbance.
QuoteWhich means they can also choose not to, and instead choose simply to crimimalize language that someone(s) decide is simply hateful, MINUS public order disturbance.
But are you consistent here? You have no problem with people publishing tracts on how the Holocaust was fake. Fine. How about publishing health reports on why adult sex with children has positive aspects in fighting cancer, complete with explicit pictures? Surely this would also fall under your "Freedom of Speech." And if the pictures are too much and violate the rights of others, then drawings would be OK, right?
There could be a film included, because we would not want the tyrannical governments of Europe to disturb the film industry with government approved "orthodox views." They can always use a boy and girl who are legally 18 and use modern technology to make them appear much younger.
So, there should be no laws preventing this? It is not "hate speech" but it is a serious academic look into the possible positive health effects of pedophillia. You're on board, right Sirs?
QuoteMy "problem" is in your own response. "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order..."
First, to understand that you have to understand the European Union and how it functions. That will require a lot of time and I don't want to get into that unless you wish to sincerely discuss it.QuoteWhich means they can also choose not to, and instead choose simply to crimimalize language that someone(s) decide is simply hateful, MINUS public order disturbance.
But are you consistent here? You have no problem with people publishing tracts on how the Holocaust was fake. Fine.
How about publishing health reports on why adult sex with children has positive aspects in fighting cancer, complete with explicit pictures? Surely this would also fall under your "Freedom of Speech." And if the pictures are too much and violate the rights of others, then drawings would be OK, right?
There could be a film included, because we would not want the tyrannical governments of Europe to disturb the film industry with government approved "orthodox views." They can always use a boy and girl who are legally 18 and use modern technology to make them appear much younger.
So, there should be no laws preventing this? It is not "hate speech" but it is a serious academic look into the possible positive health effects of pedophillia.
You're on board, right Sirs?
Show me somewhere, anywhere that someone(s) are claiming sex with chidren can fight cancer. That's neither political nor even controversial. That's just perverse.
And the riot it might cause would be aimed at them.
It's a private industry, and requires the market to make them a success or not. Let's see what kind of backlash such a movie gets.
If any actual harm to any actual child can be demonstrated , then the book should be thrown at them.
QuoteShow me somewhere, anywhere that someone(s) are claiming sex with chidren can fight cancer. That's neither political nor even controversial. That's just perverse.
No more perverse than saying the Holocaust never happened, in my opinion.
QuoteAnd the riot it might cause would be aimed at them.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You can't prove there will be a riot.
I never mentioned Hollywood, you did (which is strange really). The adult movie industry is actually very succesful and the tactic I mentioned is used (and I saw that documented on a BBC program you perverts!).
So I never got a real sense of your consistency on this issue Sirs.
Did you all read what the article says:QuoteThey will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes†when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.
Tell me again why this is a problem for you? You realise of course that the Freedom of speech in the United States is conditional, correct?
Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.
Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.
Prince.....you realize you're just trying to "project you American view" onto others, right?
Plane, I still fail to see that you refuted anything I said about Galileo.QuoteIf any actual harm to any actual child can be demonstrated , then the book should be thrown at them.
Kind of like if a racist incites a riot that harms a minority population?
Inciteing and leading a riot is a crime not protected by the first admendment.
Lastly, please realize that Europe faces these problems today, just as they once did. The Yugoslav Wars were a horrifying reminder of that.
What Europe did about the Balkins is a demonstration of how they still need us to distract them from symbols and direct their attention to reality.
I can't believe that you think of the US involvement in the European Theater as peripheral and not critical.
The Playbook for Kids about Sex: with brightly coloured pictures that showed all about homosexuality and how it was done for children as young as five.
The Milkman's on his Way: explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.
QuoteWhat Europe did about the Balkins is a demonstration of how they still need us to distract them from symbols and direct their attention to reality.
That makes no sense. Bush did nothing, as did his European counterparts (for various reasons including problems understanding what to do about the collapse of the USSR).
The first to act was the United Nations, but that was only after the Croatian War had already seen terrible acts of nationalist violence. These acts were not stopped by the United States at all, or even addressed as a priority. John Major tended to follow Bush's lead.
It was only after the war had spread to Bosnia and the Clinton administration had viewed this as a more important priority that the United States took a more active role.
Your comment on "symbols" has no evidence.QuoteI can't believe that you think of the US involvement in the European Theater as peripheral and not critical.
Where did I say that or downplay the role of Eisenhower?
My point was that the European Theatre primarily effected the everyday lives of (you guessed it) Europeans. Americans tend to think that we rushed in and saved the day in both World War I and World War II, but that tends to present a false view in both cases (as well as completely dismissing the role of the other forces).
Ask yourself which people and which country really broke the back of the German Army. Which nations really saw the devastation of the European war?
We tend to downplay the role of others in our viewpoint, don't we?
The truth is that your all's argument really is an American perspective.
As much as we like to think how great we are (and let's be honest, as a nation we do tend to be rather chauvinistic) the truth is that the European theatre of World War II was primarily fought without us.
The tragedy and absolute horror of the Holocaust was a degredation of humanity with an efficiency not seen in modern times to that date. For Europeans, and especially those nations and peoples who were complicit in the Holocaust, it is a stain on their national conscience. It goes beyond Germany to the many nations that deported Jews, Roma, Slavs, and all those who met their end after reading the cruelly ironic "Arbeit Macht Frei" signs.
More than that, European people still have a strong sense of society. This is a very foreign concept to Americans. We have a very individualist philosophy. You won't find American newspapers and politicians and the public discussing the issue of slavery or the treatment of the Native Americans in a large national debate. Whereas you may find this in the UK or France when discussing past colonies. I'm not saying either view is right or wrong, just that we are more likely to say, "hey, I never owned a slave or hurt a Native American, so this has nothing to do with me." Whereas a European might be more likely to say, "we treated them like shite before, we cannot tell them to bugger off now!"
Lastly, please realise that Europe faces these problems today, just as they once did. The Yugoslav Wars were a horrifying reminder of that.
Yet, there is an aspect that I don't think you are considering which goes beyond the limitations of a simple argument over rights.
Unless one takes a European perspective, or abstracts (and thus bleeds the issue of emotional power and historical context) the ideas to having the situs of an imagined or idealized state or region, one has no business talking about the matter ... responsibly.
"...Unless one takes a European perspective, or abstracts (and thus bleeds the issue of emotional power and historical context) the ideas to having the situs of an imagined or idealized state or region, one has no business talking about the matter ... responsibly."
Kinda arrogant to say this, isn't it?
Sirs, These are real books:.....I assume you support them being written for children? Afterall, you don't want to commit a thought crime.
If this were happening in America, I would be the first to shout out against it. But its not, and all the indignations evident in this thread are "american arrogance" at its worst.
To the contrary, Professor (are you really a professor?), I think it's right on the money.
"...Unless one takes a European perspective, or abstracts (and thus bleeds the issue of emotional power and historical context) the ideas to having the situs of an imagined or idealized state or region, one has no business talking about the matter ... responsibly."
Kinda arrogant to say this, isn't it?
Actually, it is more arrogant to assume an American perspective on European matters. Ergo, understanding a European issue from a European perspective is then only way to effectively debate this issue. Knowledge of the culture, daily life and lifestyles, etc. certainly would help as well.
If this were happening in America, I would be the first to shout out against it. But its not, and all the indignations evident in this thread are "american arrogance" at its worst.
JS claims to understand American issues all the time.
Actually, it is more arrogant to assume an American perspective on European matters. Ergo, understanding a European issue from a European perspective is then only way to effectively debate this issue. Knowledge of the culture, daily life and lifestyles, etc. certainly would help as well.
If this were happening in America, I would be the first to shout out against it. But its not, and all the indignations evident in this thread are "american arrogance" at its worst.
No, Prince, they (the Europeans) are simply considering how to set the rules for THEIR lives (and THEIR society) in light of a horrible history that happened on THEIR continent. You have no business telling them how to manage their affairs on such an issue. Period.
No, Prince, they (the Europeans) are simply considering how to set the rules for THEIR lives (and THEIR society) in light of a horrible history that happened on THEIR continent. You have no business telling them how to manage their affairs on such an issue. Period.
No, Domer, you're not paying attention. I did not criticize them for deciding on their own laws. I criticized a single law and the idea that the law represents. I am not telling them how to do anything. I am expressing disagreement with one of their decisions, and I gave my reason for that disagreement. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Your insistence that Americans cannot dare to express disagreement with the law because Americans are not European is not only unreasonable, it's nonsense.
Does this mean that ,reciprocally ,Europeans actually have a right to express an opinion on American law and custom?
Does this mean that ,reciprocally ,Europeans actually have a right to express an opinion on American law and custom?
I don't see why they would not. Do you?
To think otherwise is sheer folly. The French, by 1941, were a shell of a force, the Brits were literally backed up against a wall, the Aussies were few in number and on and on. Js, your statements are inaccurate.
My point gentlemen, was not that you cannot have a valid opinion because of course you can.
My point was that many of you are arguing from one very manichaen viewpoint: freedom of speech - end of.
<<I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.>>
As great a wrong as was the Holocaust?
But what if freedom of speech was gradually reduced to nothing , by means of many sucyh well meaning laws.
I think by manichean you mean dualistic, black-and-white.
I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.
QuoteBut what if freedom of speech was gradually reduced to nothing , by means of many sucyh well meaning laws.
Yet, you have no evidence that this is the case. You have the slippery slope theory and it is unfair to use it in every possible situation.QuoteI think by manichean you mean dualistic, black-and-white.
Yes. I think that probably is unfair to characterize you Prince.QuoteI'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.
I think this is just an area where we honestly disagree.
I'd like to go back to the books I asked Sirs about. He said that in no way should children be able to get a hold of these books on homosexuality. Yet, free speech is useless without an audience, right? I mean, these people denying the Holocaust are writing books and expecting people to read them. My question is this, should these books be placed in a public library? Is that not part of free speech? If you never allow the material to see daylight, then you've just buried free speech by less transparent means, correct? At least this way the Government has a law for all to see. If you disallow books in public (or by whatever means) then you've just attacked free speech in a more covert manner.
So should the books I mentioned be allowed in libraries? Should they be allowed in state schools? What about these Holocaust denial books?
There is not a good reason to treat us all as children tho.
QuoteI'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.
I think this is just an area where we honestly disagree.
I'd like to go back to the books I asked Sirs about. He said that in no way should children be able to get a hold of these books on homosexuality.
Yet, free speech is useless without an audience, right? I mean, these people denying the Holocaust are writing books and expecting people to read them. My question is this, should these books be placed in a public library? Is that not part of free speech?
If you never allow the material to see daylight, then you've just buried free speech by less transparent means, correct? At least this way the Government has a law for all to see. If you disallow books in public (or by whatever means) then you've just attacked free speech in a more covert manner.
So should the books I mentioned be allowed in libraries? Should they be allowed in state schools? What about these Holocaust denial books?
I have no problem, as I say, with people using this proposed ban as an abstract or imaginary platform to wax poetic about libertarian theories of speech, but I react quite dyspeptically to the pretense of any expertise, entitlement or authority whatsoever to chime in about how this -- ESPECIALLY THIS -- matter is to be handled by those who actually lived through its horrors and will live with its dark legacy.
(If I can be charged with arrogance for voicing this opinion, then what can you be charged with for running willy nilly into the eye of the storm in a dilettante's get-up, not ready for substantive contribution but merely to chime in with reflexive libertarianism?)
The reason I asked....well, it's hard to explain.
In one post, JS says to UP (paparphrase): "Sure, you can have a valid opinion [by the way, what does 'valid' mean, JS?] about the EU plan to ban Holocaust denial," but then says (and this is a direct quote): "What I was advising was that one should consider where the EU is coming from in determining this law. I'm sure that Domer and any other legal experts we have around can tell you that law is anything but black and white (most of the time). There are many cultural and societal elements to the legal system in any nation. These stem from collective histories and national events that affect the population at large and thus the legislatures. Laws are also affected by the political system involved."
Prince,
Thank you for your response.
The reason I asked....well, it's hard to explain.
I think that people want to forget bad things, especially if their country has done those things. They want to minimize, to pretend it maybe wasn't as bad as all that, and if you go down that road, eventually you have several generations past the actual horrible deed, and people may not believe it ever happened at all. It didn't affect them.
This is why they are making it illegal in Europe, I believe: because it was so horrible. And they don't want anyone to ever forget or deny that it actually did happen, so that it can never happen again. One must face up to facts. Denying them is not healthy in the long run.
I can't make a good comparison for the US except perhaps, if someone were to state that slavery never happened. There's documentary evidence for both the Holocaust and for slavery too. It may be a poor comparison, though.
This law, or more accurately this framework for a law being passed down by the European Union, is a product of much more than a question of freedom of speech.
<<woud you want it to be against the law for someone to state tha slavery "wasn't so bad"?>>
No. Let's say someone wrote a book on why internment camps were really a good idea, and maybe we should have some again today for people of Middle Eastern origin.
I'd want to know who that person was and quick, so I could avoid them like the plague and warn others against them.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
I can't favor legislation to tell people how to think.
Precisely
QuoteTo think otherwise is sheer folly. The French, by 1941, were a shell of a force, the Brits were literally backed up against a wall, the Aussies were few in number and on and on. Js, your statements are inaccurate Are the Gators still paying their players?
But, Plane, that may be because this is a vast country. I'm not worried about immigrants taking over and denying history.
If I lived in a small European country, I might very well worry about that, with good reason.
If my country were small, and had lost several million of its citizens during WW2, I would consider Holocaust denial as the possible beginning of just another such awful period. And I'd think of it the same as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
You must learn from history. You can't say, "Oh, that will never happen again, we are all over that."
As far as I know, Hispanics have never denied the Holocaust happened.
The Holocaust is Europe's crowning entry in the category of outrage, much like slavery and Indian slaughter are for the United States.
If the US, for example, had a significant minority using the supposed absence of slavery as a potent tool to stoke the fires of hatred in a contemporary political movement with a hate message at its base, then maybe a "slavery-denial" law would have to be looked at.
There are plenty of examples, Ami, which I'm not going to take the time now to document.
Holocaust denial may be compared to either the match or the fuel for a feared conflagration that could again consume Europe, and all the smoky points short of that.
We disagree, Plane, though my position, oft-stated, is to defer to the Europeans.
Search "anti-Semitism Europe" on Google, and take your pick, Ami.
It is not that Europe has become more anti-Semitic, it is simply that, over the past few years, people have felt much more at ease in expressing their prejudices. In part this is to do with the situation in the Middle East.Quoted from interview with Peter Sichrovsky
Obviously people must have the right to criticise Israel, but it frequently appears to be the case that a standard is applied to Israel that isn't to the rest of the world. The US is also a victim of this kind of hypocrisy - thousands will turn out to protest against President Bush and yet they'll be silent when it comes to a genuinely bloody dictator.
It's not the far-right that are the problem, as they have been brought under control in Europe. It is the politically-correct, centre-left which simultaneously condemns acts of anti-Semitism while defending regimes which support terrorism against Israel.
In interviews on the Middle East in the media (Zur Zeit, al-Jazira, the Austrian weekly Profil) in 2002, Haider referred to “acts of state terrorism committed by Israel against the Palestinians†and accused Sharon and the Israeli army of “war crimes.†Helmut Müller, an Austrian contact of the German NPD, wrote in Zur Zeit “we know that… many [Palestinians were] humiliated and tortured and interned in concentration camp-style camps.
I need not point out, I'm sure, that the "classic" anti-Semitic movement started with a vocal but limited cadre of operatives known as the Brownshirts.