Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

[Nessie]

Thanks for the detailed response Lemmy, now I just need to work out a summarised version for the dullard denialists.....!

 

[Nessie]

.....
With all that said. How does someone like Germar Rudolf or Ursula Haverbeck incite hatred? How can Germar Rudolfs writings be seen as hate speech? He appeared to be quite civilised to me. Sure, Jews and non-Jews will be offended by his work. But you can't put someone in jail because the feelings of other people are hurt or offended.
Again, just my opinion, and you're all free to have and express yours. : )

I do not think denial should be illegal.

However, what Rudolph and Haverbeck do is offensive because they do not evidence their beliefs. Even those who think missiles hit the Twin Trade Towers know they have to provide evidence for their claim.

Deniers believe millions survived and were not gassed. But they don't even try and find witnesses, records or any evidence of that mass survival.*

Instead claim all Jews are liars and they manipulated the trials of Nazis who were forced to lie. They lied about how gassings worked, they lied about mass pyres, they lied about mass shootings at Babi Yar. Wiernik lied, as did Rajchman, as did every single person who said they saw a gas chamber. Others lied they survived repeated mass gassings. Lies were told about human soap and fertiliser. Lies were told about burning chimneys and it was all just lies.

They then conclude all those people survived going to the AR camps and reporting to Babi Yar and the Holocaust did not happen.

*Actually there was one, Thomas Kues, who looked for evidence of gassed Jews in the Russian east. All he found was rumours.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Lemmy, thanks for the research.
To be honest though, I don't want to debate this topic any longer.
What I said about Wiernik was my personal opinion. You guys have your opinion and I have mine and that's it.

As they used to say, we gave it the old college try

Back to the 1947 Polish trial, I found that there's a chapter in Gutman & Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp (1998) on postwar prosecution of the SS - pp 594-595 cover the 1947 trials. The passage doesn't answer the question. It does, however, say that the verdicts were lenient for SS men working in dept II, III, and V (political dept - Gestapo; administration; camp physician) who were involved extermination of registered prisoners or mass murders. Lasik, the author, suggests that the "prosecution lacked full understanding" of how the camp functioned and the roles in the camp of the defendants. The most common sentence, says Lasik, was 3 years in prison.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That's interesting and I see where you're coming from.
However, what is hate speech? Who defines hate speech and who defines when or if someone feels hurt or insulted? There might be thousands of Jews who are not insulted by Holocaust denial. And there might be thousands of people who feel hurt and insulted when I show them my middle finger. So what do we do now? Should people go to jail for giving someone
the finger?
I agree with you that one should not be allowed to incite hatred or to call for the deportation/violence against minorities.
I also agree that we should make a distinction between Stalinism and Communism, I dind't think that one through.

With all that said. How does someone like Germar Rudolf or Ursula Haverbeck incite hatred? How can Germar Rudolfs writings be seen as hate speech? He appeared to be quite civilised to me. Sure, Jews and non-Jews will be offended by his work. But you can't put someone in jail because the feelings of other people are hurt or offended.
Again, just my opinion, and you're all free to have and express yours. : )

Hate speech is legally defined in the UK, and- I assume-elsewhere.
It is thus controlled by Parliament, and, ultimately, by the general public.
There is a sliding scale of offence and consequential punishment. In the UK, from my reading of the wiki article, you could actually be jailed for showing someone the finger, though I don't know if this has ever been tried. That would get you a few months, as opposed to the years you could get for inciting racial or religious hatred, which are justly seen as more serious.

It is possible- though, I submit, unlikely- that there are numbers of Jews who might not be insulted by Holocaust denial. However, a hate crime does not need to cause fear, offence or distress to every member of a subgroup in order for it to be a crime. Why should it? Furthermore, it isn't only Jews who would be offended by such a stance. I'm not gay myself, but I am deeply opposed to homophobia, and would support the jailing of those who attempt to stir up hatred against that community. Hate crimes affect everyone, not just those who are specificaly targetted by them. What we are prepared to tolerate, and what we are not, says a lot about the state of our societies - our humanity, our moral and ethical values, and our desire to protect the vulnerable from the hate-filled.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Hate speech is legally defined in the UK, and- I assume-elsewhere.

But not in the US. In the US speech rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, amendments that are part of the US Constitution, and then defined/regulated by case law.

Without making another long post, I'll just note that a number of decisions of the US Supreme Court, with the First 1st and 14th Amendments as grounding, clarified/defined the legal framework for speech protections. These decisions lean toward regulating actions, with little restriction on speech. Courts have limited speech involving "fighting words" and "imminent danger" and found other exceptions but not opted for a broad regulation of what might be termed hate speech in other countries. In fact, in 2017 (Matal v Tam) the Court said, "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'” And that "public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." There is, AFAIK, no agreed legal definition even of hate speech.

As for our legislature addressing this, it won't: right now, for example, they're very busy deciding whether designating some countries as "*********" is good policy. (edit: interestingly the software here will not allow me to use the word that looks like "********" even though it seems to be White House terminology)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for a breach of rule 10. Please do not disguise swear words in the public sections (of which C&CT is one). Type the word out in full and correctly spelled, and allow the autocensor to work if the word is on the naughty list.

 

[Nessie]

If the situation was that a group were claiming all gay people, or Americans were called liars and that they had conspired to fleece Germany of lots of money, maybe then those who do not get why denial in itself is anti-Semitic, would understand better.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

But not in the US. In the US speech rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, amendments that are part of the US Constitution, and then defined/regulated by case law.

Without making another long post, I'll just note that a number of decisions of the US Supreme Court, with the First 1st and 14th Amendments as grounding, clarified/defined the legal framework for speech protections. These decisions lean toward regulating actions, with little restriction on speech. Courts have limited speech involving "fighting words" and "imminent danger" and found other exceptions but not opted for a broad regulation of what might be termed hate speech in other countries. In fact, in 2017 (Matal v Tam) the Court said, "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'” And that "public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." There is, AFAIK, no agreed legal definition even of hate speech.

Interesting- thanks for the info.
So in some countries, hate speech is legally defined, and is not just made up by thin-skinned rabble-rousers to try to shut down legitimate free speech. In the US, there is no such thing as hate speech, and you can pretty much say what you want.
In both cases, I can see the justification, and in neither case can Holocaust deniers claim they are being unfairly persecuted.

 

[dudalb]

Sometimes I struggle with the notion that in the year 2018, we've still got people who deny that the holocaust happened, and then I remember that we've got a new trend in flat-earth theories and a fresh crop of we didn't land on the moon folk. Then I sort of sigh and shrug my shoulders.

From Monty Python's "Galaxy Song".

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth

 

[Nessie]

... In the US, there is no such thing as hate speech....

I am not sure you literally mean that. More hate is spoken in the USA than anywhere else, on all sorts of subjects, because it is not illegal and people can get away with being very hateful indeed.

That is why so many Holocaust deniers are American, or live in the USA. It is where they can be as hateful as they want, with the least amount to fear from the law.

 

[cow_cat]

This gets to be interesting (to me, anyway) questions on human rights and their limits. Yes, freedom of speech as an American construct - or freedom of expression for those of us in European countries is one of the most fundamental human rights. But this right is not inviolate; that is, it is not limitless. Generally, when human rights have limits placed upon them, it is because they are pressing up against another human right which would be violated if unconstrained.

Without digging too deeply, the European Convention on Human Rights protects an individual's right to life (or Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness if you prefer Thomas Jefferson's phrasing). So if Person A speaks in such a way that Person B has a genuine fear for their life, then that is a valid reason to limit Person A's speech. Exactly where the legal boundaries are drawn in terms of what constitutes a credible threat and how much life can be threatened before you are no longer allowed to say whatever the hell you want will be down to legal decisions, judges, precedents and local case law.

It is absolutely valid that free speech is constrained if the alternative is credible threats towards the life of a human. And if that threat is credible against an entire religion of many millions of people, (as what was attempted the last time racists gained significant political power backed by the largest military in the world), then I am happy that certain things should not allowed to be said, and are outlawed.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I am not sure you literally mean that. More hate is spoken in the USA than anywhere else, on all sorts of subjects, because it is not illegal and people can get away with being very hateful indeed.

That is why so many Holocaust deniers are American, or live in the USA. It is where they can be as hateful as they want, with the least amount to fear from the law.

No, I meant no legal definition of hate speech, whch would be subject to legal punishment.
I thought that was clear from the context, but happy to clarify.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This gets to be interesting (to me, anyway) questions on human rights and their limits. Yes, freedom of speech as an American construct - or freedom of expression for those of us in European countries is one of the most fundamental human rights. But this right is not inviolate; that is, it is not limitless. Generally, when human rights have limits placed upon them, it is because they are pressing up against another human right which would be violated if unconstrained.

Without digging too deeply, the European Convention on Human Rights protects an individual's right to life (or Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness if you prefer Thomas Jefferson's phrasing). So if Person A speaks in such a way that Person B has a genuine fear for their life, then that is a valid reason to limit Person A's speech. Exactly where the legal boundaries are drawn in terms of what constitutes a credible threat and how much life can be threatened before you are no longer allowed to say whatever the hell you want will be down to legal decisions, judges, precedents and local case law.

It is absolutely valid that free speech is constrained if the alternative is credible threats towards the life of a human. And if that threat is credible against an entire religion of many millions of people, (as what was attempted the last time racists gained significant political power backed by the largest military in the world), then I am happy that certain things should not allowed to be said, and are outlawed.

Indeed.
I find it strange that, in the US, I could stand outside someone's house every day and call for them to be murdered, and legally they could do nothing about it.(At least, if I'm reading this right).
I'm with you on this one: I think the law should protect people from that kind of harassment and intimidation.

 

[cow_cat]

I don't know exactly how the American system works in practice. I know that there are some limits on completely free speech, but I don't know where the limits are, or how far you can take things. LemmyCauton's posts above contain better information on the American situation than mine; I was talking more in general terms from the human rights perspective, and the reasoning behind why most fundamental rights are not completely limitless.

Like you, I think that some things are worth protecting more than being able to express yourself in any way you like. The right for all people to live without fear is (in my opinion) one of those things.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Indeed.
I find it strange that, in the US, I could stand outside someone's house every day and call for them to be murdered, and legally they could do nothing about it.(At least, if I'm reading this right).
I'm with you on this one: I think the law should protect people from that kind of harassment and intimidation.

Or you could organize an army of neo-Nazi trolls to threaten someone's life, using Holocaust related taunts . . . "American Neo-Nazi Is Using Holocaust Denial As A Legal Defense | HuffPost" (It remains to be seen if Anglin can get away with this, as the courts may find "imminent danger" or actual threats of harm in the case, but the Westboro Church's anti-gay campaign is another example and there are others) . . . I agree that a weakness in the US approach is exactly what you said: it doesn't successfully address instances of harassment and intimidation.

 

[teamMerkel]

It is possible- though, I submit, unlikely- that there are numbers of Jews who might not be insulted by Holocaust denial. However, a hate crime does not need to cause fear, offence or distress to every member of a subgroup in order for it to be a crime. Why should it? Furthermore, it isn't only Jews who would be offended by such a stance. I'm not gay myself, but I am deeply opposed to homophobia, and would support the jailing of those who attempt to stir up hatred against that community. Hate crimes affect everyone, not just those who are specificaly targetted by them. What we are prepared to tolerate, and what we are not, says a lot about the state of our societies - our humanity, our moral and ethical values, and our desire to protect the vulnerable from the hate-filled.

Fair enough, but who exactly, of the more prominent Holocaust deniers is "stirring up hatred" against anyone? How does Rudolf, publishing a book with his opinion that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz, stir up hatred?

I've got an example for you. I moved to Dresden in 2005 and each year in February, far right and Neo-Nazi groups gather to remember the victims of the bombings. I don't sympathize with them, I don't like them, but it's within their rights to do so.
On this day, people from the far left will regularly hold up banners, tweet and post on social media "Bomber Harris do it again". I can't post links, you can google it.
By your logic, these people, by mocking the remembrance of the thousands of civilian victims of the bombings and their descendants should be jailed. They should, right? I mean, how is calling for the repitition of the bombing of a city not hate speech? How is it not far worse than not believing that homicidal gas chambers existed and expressing that opinion.
Isn't that like going to Auschwitz on January 27th and saying "Adolf Hitler, do it again". And that's obviously far worse than not believing in mass murder with gas chambers.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Fair enough, but who exactly, of the more prominent Holocaust deniers is "stirring up hatred" against anyone? How does Rudolf, publishing a book with his opinion that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz, stir up hatred?

The accusation that the Holocaust is a Jewish lie to gain financially and politically is textbook anti-Semitism. The other day, to take one of 1000s of examples, I read in a Holocaust denial forum the following comment, from denier FP Berg, about witnesses to the gas chambers, "ALL of the "eyewitnesses" are LIARS--no exceptions." That's a mild insult compared to what else can be read on that forum and from other deniers: in defense of imprisoned German denier Ursula Haverbeck, Scott Smith posted in the same forum, riffing on The Turner Diaries, "One can only hope that when the proverbial Day of the Rope comes that there will be enough lampposts to go around," and someone calling himself NSDAP added, "Why rope, whats wrong with Hydrogen Cyanide :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:" Such funny stuff.

Former denier Eric Hunt let the cat out of the bag, although TBH the cat was running pretty free all along, when he explained why denial isn't a necessary strategy for racists, "In many ways I feel the 'denial' issue held me back from tackling other issues essential to the survival of Western Civilization. Especially Nationalism, race realism, and opposing the very real Jewish-led white genocide campaign." That is, denial didn't serve the goal of extreme racism well enough. (http://archive.is/DoGTn#selection-6891.4-6891.591).

Saying this I do not mean to imply that HD should be prohibited speech - I don't think it should be, even though it is very often hateful - by intent.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

Both expressions should be allowed: IMO public expressions about events and policies, even if obnoxious and hate-filled, in public forums should be protected - if, in your case, one side went to the homes of families of the victims and repeatedly taunted and harassed them, it would be a different story. Or, say, an immigrant family from Somalia using a public park in Stockholm was subjected to a barrage of insults designed to and making it impossible for them to feel safe and enjoy the park - that crosses a line IMO, whereas the expression that Sweden should forbid immigration falls on the other side of the line.

 

[Nessie]

Fair enough, but who exactly, of the more prominent Holocaust deniers is "stirring up hatred" against anyone? How does Rudolf, publishing a book with his opinion that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz, stir up hatred?

Because he is alleging the Jews at Auschwitz all lied about there being gassings and somehow forced the Nazis to admit to a crime that did not happen.

I've got an example for you. I moved to Dresden in 2005 and each year in February, far right and Neo-Nazi groups gather to remember the victims of the bombings. I don't sympathize with them, I don't like them, but it's within their rights to do so.
On this day, people from the far left will regularly hold up banners, tweet and post on social media "Bomber Harris do it again". I can't post links, you can google it.
By your logic, these people, by mocking the remembrance of the thousands of civilian victims of the bombings and their descendants should be jailed. They should, right? I mean, how is calling for the repitition of the bombing of a city not hate speech? How is it not far worse than not believing that homicidal gas chambers existed and expressing that opinion.
Isn't that like going to Auschwitz on January 27th and saying "Adolf Hitler, do it again". And that's obviously far worse than not believing in mass murder with gas chambers.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

One group is also trying to re-write history, the other is not.

 

[LemmyCaution]

One group is also trying to re-write history, the other is not.

What's wrong in principle with re-writing history? Isn't that what many historians do - e.g., as described here by James McPherson:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution. Would President Bush and Condoleeza Rice wish to associate themselves with Southern political leaders of the 1950s who condemned Chief Justice Earl Warren and his colleagues as revisionist historians because their decision (which, incidentally, was based in part on the research of historian John Hope Franklin and others) in Brown v. Board of Education struck down the accepted version of history and law laid down by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson?

https://www.historians.org/publicat...history/september-2003/revisionist-historians

 

[Nessie]

One group is incorrectly re-writing history as their "research" is not evidence lead, is riddled with fallacies, refuses to use the correct method of enquiry and is heavily biased.

 

[Pacal]

Fair enough, but who exactly, of the more prominent Holocaust deniers is "stirring up hatred" against anyone? How does Rudolf, publishing a book with his opinion that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz, stir up hatred?

I've got an example for you. I moved to Dresden in 2005 and each year in February, far right and Neo-Nazi groups gather to remember the victims of the bombings. I don't sympathize with them, I don't like them, but it's within their rights to do so.
On this day, people from the far left will regularly hold up banners, tweet and post on social media "Bomber Harris do it again". I can't post links, you can google it.
By your logic, these people, by mocking the remembrance of the thousands of civilian victims of the bombings and their descendants should be jailed. They should, right? I mean, how is calling for the repitition of the bombing of a city not hate speech? How is it not far worse than not believing that homicidal gas chambers existed and expressing that opinion.
Isn't that like going to Auschwitz on January 27th and saying "Adolf Hitler, do it again". And that's obviously far worse than not believing in mass murder with gas chambers.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

Aside from the fact that the tasteless idiots who say "Bomber Harris do it again!" don't deny that the bombing happened unlike the deniers. It is obvious to me that the whole purpose of the banner(s) is to get the goats of Nazis and Nazis sympathizers whose sense of outrage is of course totally selective. I rather suspect the idiots who say "Bomber Harris, do it again!" don't mean it in the slightest. For one thing Bomber Harris is long dead, so he can't "do it again?".

Deniers are a different matter. For one thing they mean it. Also the great majority of them are anti-semites who believe devoutly and utterly in the notion that the Holocaust "hoax" was a nefarious invention of evil, incredibly powerful Jews designed with evil malice aforethought to advance evil and nefarious plans for total world domination. It is in other words thoroughly conventional anti-Semitic drivel.

On more than one occasion I have heard deniers actually promulgate the notion that the holocaust didn't happen but tat it should have happened. The fact that the majority of Deniers are motivated by anti-Semitic antagonism isn't debatable. Their campaign of denial is part of, in their eyes, the struggle against the evil Jews who are the source of much if not most of the evil in the world in their eyes.

The apparent fact that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups have hijacked to a certain extent commemoration of the Dresden bombing, in order to advance their hateful agenda, is disgusting.

So yes Holocaust denial is worst than the stupidity of "Bomber Harris, do it again!". I should also point out that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups will in their more unguarded moments admit that the idea of mass murdering the "inferior" people pleases them to no end. Holocaust denial is part of that campaign to achieve that loathsome goal.