should Holocaust denial be illegal in britain

skeptichaggis said:
OK,there seems to be a assumption that deniers,while disgusting,are normal human beings. They are not. These people see anything that is not physical force(ie imprisonment)as society's weakness, period. They view the fact they can legally pour out racial abuse as empowering. Pretty much every anti Semitic murder carried out in the west is committed by someone who got away with spouting holocaust denial for years.all attackers begin with racial abuse and work up to physical attacks.

OK before I begin let me just say i appreciate that many here have wildly different opinions here than me and I full respect that.
Anyay, NO society,nation or culture on earth has complete free speech. That's due to something called REALITY. You can't stand outside a nursery and say to passers by you want to kidnap a child but your a law abiding guy so you wont,you can't stand outside a airport and say"wouldn't it be great if one had a bomb on it"to people entering the airport. If you did I assure you your right to free speech would avail you little in court. Some years back there were riots in england but none in Scotland. Nevertheless several Scottish citizens were handed long prison sentences for threatening, and in one case saying they "might"join in at any Scottish flashpoint. There was no proof these people were serious but they got imprisoned.

The two hypothetical and one real example above have a few things in common. People were punished for words. Words that in the real case JURYS of ordinary folk decided were so filled with the horror of eminent violence that force had to be used against the speakers/writers.
Holocaust deniers are so filed with hate they fit this category. When they yell "holohoax"as they speed past a Jewish man they are emboldened, they are exultant. You can't speak with these brutes,can't seek to mollify them. They regard people that try that with contempt. When racially abusive people get away with racist verbal attacks they are emboldened to go further.

By the way a certain small social/political band of drinking cronies at the start of the weimer republic also stated with words. They said petty much the same stuff as modern anti Semites,giving them the right to free speech worked out SO well didn't it.
Holocaust deniers are EXTREMELY dangerous.
I'm not talking about removing one iota of free speech from rational human beings. But holocaust deniers are not rational human beings they are sick,twisted scum that society needs to be protected from.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you could do those two hypotheticals at the nursery and airport. It is on public property and you are not saying anything construed as conspiracy or a threat.

You might get arrested, but people get arrested falsely and Sue all the time.
 
skeptichaggis said:
ordinary folk decided were so filled with the horror of eminent violence that force had to be used against the speakers.
Click to expand...

Just how eminent was this violence? Was it prominent? Lofty? Perhaps it was conspicuous, signal or noteworthy?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm pretty sure you could do those two hypotheticals at the nursery and airport. It is on public property and you are not saying anything construed as conspiracy or a threat.

You might get arrested, but people get arrested falsely and Sue all the time.
Click to expand...
Sue gets arrested all the time? She needs a good lawyer.
 
Reading over the reply's above I am wavering in my belief that holocaust denial should be illegal. Maybe it isn't the right way to go. Perhaps instead of making it completely illegal a better idea would be to used legislation to prevent its spread. Close down websites etc. Possibly make it a crime to teach to minors.

That's why I like this site. You can be pretty certain of your position then other intelligent folk here can give you a different perspective.

I'm not saying that I now think that holocaust denial should be legal,I am still inclined to think it should be a crime but I now appreciate that its a far more complex question than I did before.

I could be in the wrong here,its certainly got me thinking.
 
The argument seems here to be a proactive freedom of speech case. But what is the harm being prevented from these laws? I will gladly welcome an answer referring to today of when these laws were enacted.
 
I think the Brits should be careful backing the attempt to declare holocaust denialism illegal. Certain statements by th Tory leadership in the wake of the recent electoral victory suggests that a wider curbing of free expression is on the cards and this may just be a "testing of the water".
 
BobTheCoward said:
The argument seems here to be a proactive freedom of speech case. But what is the harm being prevented from these laws? I will gladly welcome an answer referring to today of when these laws were enacted.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a broad freedom of speech issue. That's one of my points,I think that's a fallacy.
Making Holocaust denial illegal would....make Holocaust denial illegal. That's all it would do. It wouldn't do anything else. It would not be remotly relevant in any other legal context. It would only affect Holocaust denial.
I find many"slippery slope"arguments ridiculous. I was one of the people here who objected and protested against I.D cards some years back. The idea was ridiculous. What was also ridiculous was the frankly hysterical slippery slope arguments put forward. A number of newspapers, political commentators etc went of the deep end,I believe gulags were mentioned.
The vast majority of physical anti Semitic attacks are carried out by people who ranted about Holocaust denial for years before the physical attack. Wouldn't it be better to prevent these attacks from happening by a pro active law.

As I wrote above some arguments put forward against making denial illegal have made a impression on me. But ultimately I still feel something needs to be done,perhaps not a outright criminal law but something that would make it a crime under certain circumstances.

Like I said,intelligent folk here have forced me to look again at my original stance.
 
skeptichaggis said:
I don't see it as a broad freedom of speech issue. That's one of my points,I think that's a fallacy.
Making Holocaust denial illegal would....make Holocaust denial illegal. That's all it would do. It wouldn't do anything else. It would not be remotly relevant in any other legal context. It would only affect Holocaust denial.
I find many"slippery slope"arguments ridiculous. I was one of the people here who objected and protested against I.D cards some years back. The idea was ridiculous. What was also ridiculous was the frankly hysterical slippery slope arguments put forward. A number of newspapers, political commentators etc went of the deep end,I believe gulags were mentioned.
The vast majority of physical anti Semitic attacks are carried out by people who ranted about Holocaust denial for years before the physical attack. Wouldn't it be better to prevent these attacks from happening by a pro active law.

As I wrote above some arguments put forward against making denial illegal have made a impression on me. But ultimately I still feel something needs to be done,perhaps not a outright criminal law but something that would make it a crime under certain circumstances.

Like I said,intelligent folk here have forced me to look again at my original stance.
Click to expand...

It is a freedom of speech issue. There is no slippery slope here. This issue is at the bottom of that hill.
 
Susheel said:
I think the Brits should be careful backing the attempt to declare holocaust denialism illegal. Certain statements by th Tory leadership in the wake of the recent electoral victory suggests that a wider curbing of free expression is on the cards and this may just be a "testing of the water".
Click to expand...

If you check my posting history, you will find it would be very hard to find someone who has a lower opinion of Holocaust Deniers than I do. I think "complete contempt and often disgust" best sums my opinion of them.
But I think to outlaw Holocaust Denail is wrong,wrong,wrong and dangerous.
In fact,I am strongly opposed to the Government banning any speech unless it is a clear and present danger to public safety,and even then it would be more of a limiting of occasion rather then a limiting of the ideas themselves.
And my standards of proof that speech is an immediate danger are pretty damn high.
Just "It;s bad for society and it's offensive" does not cut it.
And when people try to limit individual freedom they always have a Nice Sounding Excuse....
 
Hey...check out my location. My home country wrote the book on curbing of free expression. Add to this the fact that some of our "respected" politicians have shown an affinity for Hitler.
 
Susheel said:
Hey...check out my location. My home country wrote the book on curbing of free expression. Add to this the fact that some of our "respected" politicians have shown an affinity for Hitler.
Click to expand...

Well, there is that whole swastika thing as well...
 
skeptichaggis said:
The vast majority of physical anti Semitic attacks are carried out by people who ranted about Holocaust denial for years before the physical attack. Wouldn't it be better to prevent these attacks from happening by a pro active law.
Click to expand...
That's looking at it the wrong way round, in my view. The question is: how many of these "ranters" then went on to commit physical anti-Semitic attacks?

Ranting, moreover, if it is in the context of incitement or abuse, or a breach of the peace, may itself be an offence. The question is, should peaceful expressions of holocaust denial in themselves be punishable? I don't think they should, even though I know that they are absurd, and believe that they are almost always motivated by anti-Semitism.
 
Last edited:
skeptichaggis said:
The vast majority of physical anti Semitic attacks are carried out by people who ranted about Holocaust denial for years before the physical attack. Wouldn't it be better to prevent these attacks from happening by a pro active law.
Click to expand...

How would that work?

"Hey, I'd love to beat up a Jew but because I can't deny the Holocaust without getting arrested I'll just forget about it."

What it would actually do is the opposite. Open debate brings issues out into the open and gives people a chance to be educated. If we criminalise the views we don't agree with it will not only do zero to prevent people holding those views, it will prompt them to express themselves in other, non-verbal ways, i.e. violence.
 
baron said:
How would that work?

"Hey, I'd love to beat up a Jew but because I can't deny the Holocaust without getting arrested I'll just forget about it."

What it would actually do is the opposite. Open debate brings issues out into the open and gives people a chance to be educated. If we criminalise the views we don't agree with it will not only do zero to prevent people holding those views, it will prompt them to express themselves in other, non-verbal ways, i.e. violence.
Click to expand...

But there is no debate over whether the Holocaust happened. Its one of the most recorded events in history. We know it happened. Its not up for debate-period. Furthermore any debate with the deniers allows them to say"well if they are sure it took place why have debates,clearly that shows the historical community have doubts"type of rubbish.
 
Craig B said:
That's looking at it the wrong way round, in my view. The question is: how many of these "ranters" then went on to commit physical anti-Semitic attacks?

Ranting, moreover, if it is in the context of incitement or abuse, or a breach of the peace, may itself be an offence. The question is, should peaceful expressions of holocaust denial in themselves be punishable? I don't think they should, even though I know that they are absurd, and believe that they are almost always motivated by anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

I have questioned my original insistence on a outright law. Perhaps a law against telling children the Holocaust never happened, ensure no adult maintaining denier views works with children,close down websites. Perhaps jail for the website makers.
 
Craig B said:
How can you equate a sexual orientation with these sexual misdemeanours? It is not possible that a "homosexualist" might or might not be a fornicator or adulterer? Now that "homosexualist" marriage is recognised, that makes both adultery and marital fidelity possible among "homosexualists", doesn't it?
Click to expand...

1. When Mr Miano committed his alleged offensive, it wasn't

2. Mr Miano was critical of a number of sexual orientations, whether they were misdemeanours or not didn't appear to be a factor. Most listeners seemed consider that to be his opinion. It was only the homosexualist lobby who felt it was all about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom