"Beat me to death"

[Oliver]

Oliver,

Apparently, your argument is that Germans are somehow different than the rest of the world. In the rest of the world -- or at least, in the vast majority of free, western nations -- we are quite able to provide people with the right to freedom of speech, including racism and holocaust denial, without having our countries turn into fascist regimes.

It is, in fact, quite amazing just how much you sound like the Americans whom you criticize here so regularly.

The United States government, under the "leadership" of George Bush, used fear as a means of limiting peoples' freedoms. They repeated story after story about the atrocities committed by terrorists, and said, "It is necessary to take away some of your freedoms in order to prevent this from ever happening again." And what does Oliver do? Oliver goes and tells us a tragic story, and uses that in exactly the same manner, to argue that freedoms that are enjoyed in the majority of other democratic western nations should be denied to the German people.

And skip the whole thing about this being the same as libel or slander laws, or nonsense like that. The laws in many other nations very clearly differentiate between libel and slander, and what you are talking about. For example, libel and slander does not include claiming that someone did not do something bad that someone else claims they did (a prime example...it is not either libelous or slanderous to claim that it was not Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. Nor is it libelous or slanderous to claim that the U.S. gov't, or Jews, or anyone else was behind it. Nor would it be libelous or slanderous to entirely deny that the event happened, or to argue that not as many people died as the authorities claim).

I despise the way that the U.S. gov't used fear tactics to justify limiting the freedoms of American people; and I similarly dislike Germans using fear tactics to justify limiting the fredoms of German people. I particularly dislike it when Americans/Germans/anyone not only restrict such freedoms, but then insist that other nations must cooperate with them in restricting those freedoms.

Don't get me wrong -- Gerald Toben is a despicable man, and below contempt. But holding beliefs that I find despicable does not make a person a criminal. Nor does explaining those beliefs to others. Now, if the man actually encouraged/incited people towards acts of violence against people based on their race, or engaged in such acts himself, I'd fully support arresting and imprisoning him. But so far as I can see, he has not done that. Simply telling people what you believe does not constitute incitement. If it did, then every time I explained my atheist beliefs, and why I believe no god exists, I'd be "guilty" of religious attacks, and likewise subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.

Look, Wolfman. I don't browse this forum 24/7 - so I prefer to
answer longer messages when I have the time for that. Which
isn't right now, I apologize.

 

[chillzero]

I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led to the laws we have regarding hate speech.

So what was the whole deal with the story about your grandmother? You say now that you want to discuss that the Holocaust led to restrictions on hate speech. Fair enough. How you thought you could get to that by posting a story (which you still haven't responded to my question about, btw) about someone's experience with a camp jew is beyond me.

Your initial post seemed to be claiming that free speech led to the Holocaust, not the other way around. Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.

 

[Oliver]

So what was the whole deal with the story about your grandmother? You say now that you want to discuss that the Holocaust led to restrictions on hate speech. Fair enough. How you thought you could get to that by posting a story (which you still haven't responded to my question about, btw) about someone's experience with a camp jew is beyond me.

Your initial post seemed to be claiming that free speech led to the Holocaust, not the other way around. Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.

Yes, what led to the Holocaust were missing laws against hate-speech
propaganda and politicians fueling that distrust and hate against minorities.
Now that we have such laws, even the worst economic circumstances
will not allow anyone to publish hate-speech-propaganda as long the
justice systems works.

And concerning the OP, something MagZ brought up about the Holocaust
inspired me to the OP. Call it an emotional response - I don't really know
what the point is, I primarily felt to share the story.

 

[Wolfman]

Look, Wolfman. I don't browse this forum 24/7 - so I prefer to answer longer messages when I have the time for that. Which
isn't right now, I apologize.

ROTFLMAO

"when I have time for that" <-- Oliver, you've had enough time to make forty-three other posts in various threads since I wrote that. In the same time period, I've written eight. It seems quite plain that you spend more time here, and have written much more than me.

Fact is, myself and many others have seen you do this regularly. You pick and choose which posts you will respond to -- generally the ones that have the poorest arguments, or the ones that you can twist around to your own purposes in order to steer things in the direction you want -- while you ignore and refuse to respond to others.

Heck, if you don't want to answer me, that's fine. It just goes to further demonstrate the strength of my own argument. But as long as you keep posting in this thread to try to 'prove' your point by responding to others, I'm going to keep pointing out your absolute failure to respond to my post.

I'd call you a hypocrite and a fool, but that would be attacking the arguer, and not the argument -- therefore, I won't do that. Instead, I'll say simply that your arguments are hypocritical and foolish.

 

[Chaos]

Nor did anyone claim such, so I have no idea why you felt the need to make this point.

If you do not wish to be seen as making a certain claim, I suggest that you refrain from making said claim.

If you take the position that denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities is tantamount to incitement of the German masses (which seems to be the premise of these laws) then there certainly is something backwards or barbaric among Germans, because no other western country (even ones dominated by Oliver's "Caucasians") seems to have a problem with people inciting riots, violence, or destruction merely by denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities. If you take the position that Germans are actually not barbaric and uncivilized then why the need for these laws?

Is that the same way that US citizens would erupt into spontaneous orgies of public mass fornication if they were able to see bare boobs on TV? What a thoroughly barbaric bunch they are...

If your words are intended to get others to commit a crime you are not being charged for "speech alone" - you are being charged with attempting to get others to commit a criminal act.

Which is precisely the point of Holocaust denial. You don´t construct an elaborate system of lies, distortions and half-truths, all aimed at inciting hatred against a certain set of people, just because you like to hear the sound of you own voice or see your words in print.


@Tailgater:
Strange - for people who do not want to claim that, they have put in tremendous effort claiming exactly that. The jews HAVE a history of haven suffered abuse (to put it politely) in excess of that suffered by others, abuse which is continuing even now in some forms, and I don´t see what´s so terribly bad about trying to stop said abuse.

 

[Oliver]

Apparently, your argument is that Germans are somehow different than the rest of the world. In the rest of the world -- or at least, in the vast majority of free, western nations -- we are quite able to provide people with the right to freedom of speech, including racism and holocaust denial, without having our countries turn into fascist regimes.

It is, in fact, quite amazing just how much you sound like the Americans whom you criticize here so regularly.

The United States government, under the "leadership" of George Bush, used fear as a means of limiting peoples' freedoms. They repeated story after story about the atrocities committed by terrorists, and said, "It is necessary to take away some of your freedoms in order to prevent this from ever happening again." And what does Oliver do? Oliver goes and tells us a tragic story, and uses that in exactly the same manner, to argue that freedoms that are enjoyed in the majority of other democratic western nations should be denied to the German people.

And skip the whole thing about this being the same as libel or slander laws, or nonsense like that. The laws in many other nations very clearly differentiate between libel and slander, and what you are talking about. For example, libel and slander does not include claiming that someone did not do something bad that someone else claims they did (a prime example...it is not either libelous or slanderous to claim that it was not Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. Nor is it libelous or slanderous to claim that the U.S. gov't, or Jews, or anyone else was behind it. Nor would it be libelous or slanderous to entirely deny that the event happened, or to argue that not as many people died as the authorities claim).

I despise the way that the U.S. gov't used fear tactics to justify limiting the freedoms of American people; and I similarly dislike Germans using fear tactics to justify limiting the fredoms of German people. I particularly dislike it when Americans/Germans/anyone not only restrict such freedoms, but then insist that other nations must cooperate with them in restricting those freedoms.

Don't get me wrong -- Gerald Toben is a despicable man, and below contempt. But holding beliefs that I find despicable does not make a person a criminal. Nor does explaining those beliefs to others. Now, if the man actually encouraged/incited people towards acts of violence against people based on their race, or engaged in such acts himself, I'd fully support arresting and imprisoning him. But so far as I can see, he has not done that. Simply telling people what you believe does not constitute incitement. If it did, then every time I explained my atheist beliefs, and why I believe no god exists, I'd be "guilty" of religious attacks, and likewise subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.

Where did I say I want, like Bush, any expansion to any of the laws
in question? I'm actually opposed to the Nutjobs who want to install
any BigBrother-laws in Germany in light of the US led "War on Terror".

Your argument that Germany would turn into fascism again without
the laws in question, is as untrue as your claim that other western
societies have those racist freedoms and don't turn into fascist regimes.

Indeed, Britain has similar laws to Holocaust denial, such as incitement to
racial hatred. Similar laws exist in countries that were part of the holocaust
and even Australia obviously has similar laws:

In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben's website "vilified Jewish people", and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site.

And look at this:

In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making antisemitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code of Canada (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.[40] Source

So let's start with your strange "German laws are unique" claim first before
I go on...

 

[Oliver]

I don´t see what´s so terribly bad about trying to stop said abuse.

Well, if Töben and Ahmadinejad share their excitement about the
Holocaust lies, it's Ahmadinejad who is the anti-semite who should
be removed - and the other guy just a victim of German oppression:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Maddi_and_Fred.JPG

 

[Pardalis]

Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.

You believe in the supernatural?

 

[Tailgater]

That would be interesting to see Ahmadinejad arrested on one of his speaking tours and extradited to Germany to face trial for Holocaust denial.

 

[Oliver]

You believe in the supernatural?

Derailing mood? Read my last 2 posts. They're about your "arguments".

 

[Oliver]

That would be interesting to see Ahmadinejad arrested on one of his speaking tours and extradited to Germany to face trial for Holocaust denial.

Oh, it certainly would. Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would
love Germany for that double-standard. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad
doesn't have an anti-semitic website being available in Germany.

 

[Pardalis]

Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would love Germany for that double-standard.

I would love your double standard?

Like Chillzero, I'm not sure I understand your point in this thread.

 

[Tailgater]

Oh, it certainly would. Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would
love Germany for that double-standard. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad
doesn't have an anti-semitic website being available in Germany.

Uh, ya, that's why it's the world wide web. So, a website falls under the law, but openly denying it on the news and hosting conferences about it does not? Makes no sense. What is the double standard you are talking about?

He has his own section on wiki and google spits out thousands of articles, yet this guys one website is special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denier#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad

 

[Oliver]

I would love your double standard?

Like Chillzero, I'm not sure I understand your point in this thread.

My point is that the Holocaust should never ever happen again.
That's why I support those laws as much as the Canada Supreme
Court Does about their own "speech-limiting Holocaust law":

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 is a landmark freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court upheld the Criminal Code of Canada provision prohibiting the wilfull promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Source

So?

 

[Pardalis]

So?

So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?

 

[Wolfman]

Where did I say I want, like Bush, any expansion to any of the laws in question? I'm actually opposed to the Nutjobs who want to install any BigBrother-laws in Germany in light of the US led "War on Terror".

Nice red herring there, Oliver. My argument was simply about using fear tactics to justify laws that violate freedom of speech, or any other freedom -- regardless of whether those laws already exist, or are new.

Your entire OP is based on justifying German laws by using the exact same tactics that Bush uses -- you refer to something terrible that happened, and then say that these laws are necessary to "prevent that from happening again". Bush uses 9/11, you use the holocaust.

My point is that just because something bad happened, it does not automatically or implicitly justify laws that restrict freedoms; that there must be more to the argument than that. In particular, it must be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that, without such laws, the same (or worse) events would happen again.

So, can you demonstrate that without the current German laws, Germany would again start persecuting/killing Jews, or any other group? I really, really doubt it.

Your argument that Germany would turn into fascism again without
the laws in question, is as untrue as your claim that other western
societies have those racist freedoms and don't turn into fascist regimes.

WTF?!? I didn't say that Germany would turn to fascism without such laws -- in fact, I said the exact opposite!!! It is my contention that, without such laws, Germany would still be in no danger of returning to such abuses!

It is you who is implicitly arguing that Germans would do these things again. Your entire OP is based on this premise -- you cite a horror story from the past, and then state that these laws are necessary to prevent the same thing from happening again!

Indeed, Britain has similar laws to Holocaust denial, such as incitement to racial hatred. Similar laws exist in countries that were part of the holocaust and even Australia obviously has similar laws:

I don't know if you're clueless, or being deliberatly obtuse.

Yes, every country has laws that cover racism. However, in most (but not all) western countries, those laws are limited to racism that involves A) commiting acts of violence/intolerance towards others, or B) inciting others to violence or intolerance. Thus, for example, in Canada it is perfectly legal to state that you consider blacks to be inferior, or you believe that Jews are trying to take over the world -- or that the holocaust never happened, etc. But it would be illegal to physically assault someone because of their race, or encourage others to do so; and it would be illegal to deny work/housing to someone based on race.

Now, I would encourage you to go and find anywhere that this person has done those things.

Furthermore, the whole "other people do it" claim is stupidity personified. Hell, at the time leading up to WW II, other European countries also had laws that specifically discriminated against Jews...does that mean that the Nazis were justified in doing the same thing? Of course not.

In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben's website "vilified Jewish people", and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site.

Now, a curious thing here is that your link goes to a Wikipedia article about the Federal Court of Australia, yet says nothing at all about the ruling you refer to. Since I've found that you will consistently and unashamedly misrepresent, exaggerate, and/or distort information to suit your particular argument, I'd appreciate a link to the actual court case in question. I can't really comment on something about which I have no information at all except for your own (rather unreliable) claims.

And look at this:

In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making antisemitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code of Canada (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.[40] Source

Keegstra was actively teaching that "Jews are evil"; and furthermore, he was not simply expressing his views, he was actively trying to force them on a classroom of students who had to repeat his beliefs on their tests/exams in order to pass. It was this latter aspect that in particular led to the ruling against him. He wasn't simply stating his views, and leaving it up to other people to decide whether or not they agreed with him; he was using a position of power to force those views upon children.

So let's start with your strange "German laws are unique" claim first before I go on...

Hmmm...now we get a strawman. I don't recall saying that "German laws are unique". They are not. There are, in fact, other countries that have similar laws. The question of whether or not they are "unique" is entirely irrelevant. But bravo for yet another attempt at derailing the discussion in an entirely pointless direction.

China has laws that are "not unique" also...for example, imprisoning people without charges. There are many countries that do the same thing. Its not "unique"...in fact, it is relatively common in many nations. That doesn't mean that it is "right".

Let us take this back to the original point I raised -- a point that, for all your red herrings and strawmen, you never really addressed.

Bush justifies American restrictions on freedom by citing 9/11; you rely on German restrictions on freedom by citing a terrible story from your grandmother's past. Furthermore, you justify imposing German laws on other nations where the acts in question would not be illegal. All of which is complete nonsense, in that you have not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrated that without these laws, the same abuses would happen again. Personally, I don't believe they would. And my belief is supported by the plain evidence that there are numerous countries that do not have the draconian laws that Germany has in this regard, and yet those abuses you refer to in your fear-mongering are, in fact, not happening.

 

[Oliver]

Uh, ya, that's why it's the world wide web. So, a website falls under the law, but openly denying it on the news and hosting conferences about it does not? Makes no sense. What is the double standard you are talking about?

He has his own section on wiki and google spits out thousands of articles, yet this guys one website is special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denier#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad

Germany is trying to make a landmark-decision based on the fact
that a "Speech-hate"-Website that is available in Germany, is
breaching the German law - just because it's availability.

Now that's something I don't support. Unfortunately, the Internet
will be regulated, no matter what we think about it. So we'll
see if Germany is able to win this case. I doubt that. And I
doubt that Töben will be extradited in some days. We'll see.

The other argument of the supreme court here is, that they
persecuted Töben because not solely for the "Hate-Site",
but specifically because he's the Author of the content.

Not to mention that Ahmadinejad most probably has diplomatic
immunity, so he can pretty much speak whatever crosses his
mind, even making death threats to me and you.

 

[Tailgater]

So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?

I'm wondering this as well. For someone who has diced the Iranian's comments up time after time and made excuses as to how he is so non-threatening, he is quit to want justice for others spewing the same crap.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm wondering this as well. For someone who has diced the Iranian's comments up time after time and made excuses as to how he is so non-threatening, he is quit to want justice for others spewing the same crap.

Yeah, and on top of that the argument he likes to use in this case is freedom of speech.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212http://www.internationalskeptics.co...m/forums/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3034237&postcount=1676
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138

 

[Oliver]

Nice red herring there, Oliver. My argument was simply about using fear tactics to justify laws that violate freedom of speech, or any other freedom -- regardless of whether those laws already exist, or are new.

Your entire OP is based on justifying German laws by using the exact same tactics that Bush uses -- you refer to something terrible that happened, and then say that these laws are necessary to "prevent that from happening again". Bush uses 9/11, you use the holocaust.

My point is that just because something bad happened, it does not automatically or implicitly justify laws that restrict freedoms; that there must be more to the argument than that. In particular, it must be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that, without such laws, the same (or worse) events would happen again.

So, can you demonstrate that without the current German laws, Germany would again start persecuting/killing Jews, or any other group? I really, really doubt it.
WTF?!? I didn't say that Germany would turn to fascism without such laws -- in fact, I said the exact opposite!!! It is my contention that, without such laws, Germany would still be in no danger of returning to such abuses!

It is you who is implicitly arguing that Germans would do these things again. Your entire OP is based on this premise -- you cite a horror story from the past, and then state that these laws are necessary to prevent the same thing from happening again!
I don't know if you're clueless, or being deliberatly obtuse.

Yes, every country has laws that cover racism. However, in most (but not all) western countries, those laws are limited to racism that involves A) commiting acts of violence/intolerance towards others, or B) inciting others to violence or intolerance. Thus, for example, in Canada it is perfectly legal to state that you consider blacks to be inferior, or you believe that Jews are trying to take over the world -- or that the holocaust never happened, etc. But it would be illegal to physically assault someone because of their race, or encourage others to do so; and it would be illegal to deny work/housing to someone based on race.

Now, I would encourage you to go and find anywhere that this person has done those things.

Furthermore, the whole "other people do it" claim is stupidity personified. Hell, at the time leading up to WW II, other European countries also had laws that specifically discriminated against Jews...does that mean that the Nazis were justified in doing the same thing? Of course not.
Now, a curious thing here is that your link goes to a Wikipedia article about the Federal Court of Australia, yet says nothing at all about the ruling you refer to. Since I've found that you will consistently and unashamedly misrepresent, exaggerate, and/or distort information to suit your particular argument, I'd appreciate a link to the actual court case in question. I can't really comment on something about which I have no information at all except for your own (rather unreliable) claims.

Keegstra was actively teaching that "Jews are evil"; and furthermore, he was not simply expressing his views, he was actively trying to force them on a classroom of students who had to repeat his beliefs on their tests/exams in order to pass. It was this latter aspect that in particular led to the ruling against him. He wasn't simply stating his views, and leaving it up to other people to decide whether or not they agreed with him; he was using a position of power to force those views upon children.
Hmmm...now we get a strawman. I don't recall saying that "German laws are unique". They are not. There are, in fact, other countries that have similar laws. The question of whether or not they are "unique" is entirely irrelevant. But bravo for yet another attempt at derailing the discussion in an entirely pointless direction.

China has laws that are "not unique" also...for example, imprisoning people without charges. There are many countries that do the same thing. Its not "unique"...in fact, it is relatively common in many nations. That doesn't mean that it is "right".

Let us take this back to the original point I raised -- a point that, for all your red herrings and strawmen, you never really addressed.

Bush justifies American restrictions on freedom by citing 9/11; you rely on German restrictions on freedom by citing a terrible story from your grandmother's past. Furthermore, you justify imposing German laws on other nations where the acts in question would not be illegal. All of which is complete nonsense, in that you have not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrated that without these laws, the same abuses would happen again. Personally, I don't believe they would. And my belief is supported by the plain evidence that there are numerous countries that do not have the draconian laws that Germany has in this regard, and yet those abuses you refer to in your fear-mongering are, in fact, not happening.

Why would saying "Jews are evil" bad in a free speech country?
That alone wouldn't bring you in trouble here in Germany.

I assume the aspect that children are receptive for that kind of
propaganda without being able to differ between "good" and "evil"
had a major influence in that ruling, had it not?

Now would it surprise you that the German Courts argues the
same way about media like the WWW?

Would it furthermore surprise you that you can freely question the
Holocaust as long you're not publishing your opinion, like in a Book,
Website, Song or in front of a Class?

So Canadians can air racist songs and Websites. That's nice, but
it's your way of defining the line Darat mentioned. I'm okay with
that - and with our definition as well. So it's you who doesn't like
the fact that the German decision where to draw the line is slightly
different. But as long this isn't a human rights issue like in the
Guantanamo no-right-zone, I don't really bother:

The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,[93] the European Court of Human Rights[94]) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.[95] Source

And furthermore:

European Union

The European Union's executive Commission proposed a European Union wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001, which included the criminalization of Holocaust denial. On July 15, 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted the Joint action/96/443/JHA concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia.[98][99] During the German presidency there was an attempt to extend this ban.[100] Full implementation was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions of voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression.[101] As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[102][103]

Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-94