EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

[_JS]

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.

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.

I 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 devestation of the European war?

We tend to downplay the role of others in our viewpoint, don't we?

[_JS]

Sirs,

These are real books:

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.

I assume you support them being written for children? Afterall, you don't want to commit a thought crime.

[The_Professor]

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.

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.

I 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?

In World War I, we came in late and provided the bulk of the fighting men, untrained as they were and killed in droves because of it. We also provided massive material and logistical support. In Word War II, we did, indeed, "save their bacon" both both manpower, material and logistics. 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.

What this means today, however, is different. We shouldn't expext them to act "kinder" toward us today for it. We did it because it was the right thing to do. Gosh, sometimes, your postings are interesting and then other times they are off the mark. I recommend consistency, please, in quality.

[Universe Prince]

The truth is that your all's argument really is an American perspective.

Perhaps it is. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

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.

What? You mean they weren't waiting for Van Johnson to come save them? Huh. Ingrates.     (That's a joke, folks.)

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.

Of that I have no doubt. But I have to say, that seems like it should be all the more motivation to protect the rights even for those society does not like.

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!"

I don't believe overall American philosophy is nearly so individualist as all that. I think it may be that we just have a different concept of society.

Lastly, please realise that Europe faces these problems today, just as they once did. The Yugoslav Wars were a horrifying reminder of that.

Yes, I know that. I am not suggesting there are not immediate and important issues involved. I just happen to believe that making denial of the Holocaust a crime is the wrong response.

Yet, there is an aspect that I don't think you are considering which goes beyond the limitations of a simple argument over rights.

It might seem simple, but I think it is a fundamental matter. I realize you and I disagree on the nature of rights, and I do honestly understand the desire of people to want to make denying the Holocaust a crime. I easily sympathize with their situation, and I don't blame them for wanting to ban the behavior. From my perspective, however, rights are not something to be overlooked so easily. Society is not protected from hate by making certain subjects taboo. All that accomplishes is making it socially acceptable to hate the people who want to break the taboo, or in this case, the law. That entrenches the acceptable hate and creates resentment if not more hate on the part of those who find their beliefs becoming a crime. Right now, it is easy to say the Holocaust deniers are wrong because the historical facts are available for anyone to find. But one of the basic reasons to protect rights is to protect the rights of those in the minority. I think protecting the rights of the minority and least popular is vitally important to society. (Please don't bring up murderers and thieves and such. That is a whole other conversation.) If the rights of the least popular are not protected, then society ceases to be free and becomes oppressive. So while you may think the situation goes beyond an argument over rights, from where I sit, the argument over rights is at the heart of the situation.

I see the law against denial of the Holocaust as detrimental to society. Now maybe that is a wholly American position to take, but I'm not making this an argument about nationalities. This is about the ideas. You're right that I probably see things differently because I'm not there, was not raised in that culture. But I still think I'm right, and I don't see how chalking my position up to being American refutes the ideas in any way.

[Lanya]

If I may offer an opinion, it is this:
We helped a great deal to win the war.  No denying that, no doubt.  It was our blood, our soldiers, our machinery, our plants; our food and silk and rubber and gas and so on rationed, our money that we gave and gave, and from what I read, it was crucial.
But: Our cities were not bombed. Our children were not sent from their families to the countryside so they'd have a better chance of survival.   We didn't have to join the Resistance and fight against our own.   We didn't have to have village after village occupied by the enemy. We had no enemies on our land at all. 
That is a BIG difference, to my mind. 
Consider that food rationing in Great Britain lasted for 14 years, until 1954. 
Not so in the US.

[domer]

The proposed ban on denial of the Holocaust, as crafted in the proposed legislation, is, first of all, a European affair, plain and simple. Not only has it been produced by authorized representatives of that constituency for later ratification in the authorized legislatures, but in the end will be accomplished in the wake of meaningful public debate, should the issue prove burning enough, which it may not, European sensibilities being so much different on this issue. Indeed, second, those sensibilities are tied to, arguably, a unique set of thoughts and feelings produced by a unique -- unparalleled -- history, which saw that great continent ravaged not only by the most monstrous wars ever known to mankind but also the most dehumanizing insult and degradation: the Holocaust. Unless one takes a European perspective, or abstracts the ideas (and thus bleeds the issue of emotional power and historical context) to having the situs of an imagined or idealized state or region, one has no business talking about the matter ... responsibly. Finally, there is nothing whatsoever, to my way of thinking, that makes the ban on denial antithetical to "Western-style democracy" as an overt matter of democratic theory or the practice of statehood.

[The_Professor]

Good point, Lanya. I concur.

[Universe Prince]

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.

Bullshit.

[The_Professor]

"...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?

[domer]

To the contrary, Professor (are you really a professor?), I think it's right on the money.

[modestyblase]

"...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.

[domer]

Thank you, Modesty.

[sirs]

Sirs,  These are real books:.....I assume you support them being written for children? Afterall, you don't want to commit a thought crime.

JS, I recognize that the're real books.  They are absolutely inappropriate for children.  Does that mean they be prevented from being made?  NO.  It means children should have no access to them, and let the market determine if anyone else wants to wallow in that kinda garbage.  Capice'?

[Amianthus]

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.

But I am in America, and I am free to state my opinion that this is the first step to "Thought Police."

[The_Professor]

To the contrary, Professor (are you really a professor?), I think it's right on the money.

Yep. Ask Plane or Ami.

B.A., M.A., M.Div., Ph.D