I don't know?But in the latest comentary it says someone was 'convicted' of that!!!As a sceptical person,I'm outraged..if it's true.Anyone should be legally able to question ANYTHING!!!If they're wrong prove them wrong BUT it ought not to be illegal to question!!
In Belgium it's criminal to question the holocaust?
- Thread starter waitew
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
It's a criminal offence in most European countries to deny that the Nazis had a systematic policy to exterminate Jews as well as gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally and physically handicapped. It is also an offence to deny that millions of Jews in particular were killed as part of that policy.
It is not an offence to question all of the above. It is an offence to claim that those events are did not happen or were substantially exaggerated.
"In Germany... the historical reality of the Holocaust is anchored in law as legally indisputable, like the fact that the Earth is round"
- Richard Evans, Telling Lies About Hitler, page 41
Richard Evans, as part of his work as an expert witness in the libel trial Irving v Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt, came up with a set of lowest common denominator criteria for what constitutes a Holocaust denier (page 118-119):
a) The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million; it amounted to only a few hundred thousand, and was thus similar to, or less than, the number of German civilians killed in Allied Bombing raids.
b) Gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time
c) Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership had a programmeof exterminating Europe's Jews; all they wished to do was deport them to Eastern Europe
d) 'The Holocaust' was a myth invented by Allied propaganda during the war and sustained since then by Jews who wished to use it to gain political and financial support for the State of Israel or for themselves. The supposed evidence for the Nazis' wartime mass murder of millions of Jews by gassing and by other means was fabricated after the war
As for skepticism, I believe it was Robert Jan van Pelt who was skeptical that so many people could have been killed at Auschwitz extermination camp based on the logistics of killing and disposal of bodies, but after studying the blueprints and plans as well as documentation from witnesses and camp guards, he came to the conclusion that in a relatively short space of time that Auschwitz was fully operational, 1.1 million people were killed because the logistics made it eminently feasible.
So skepticism is not proscribed, but out-and-out denial of historical facts supported by a documentary mountain of evidence, certainly is.
It is possible to argue that to make denial of the Holocaust a criminal offence, is to curtail freedom of speech, and I've seen several essays on that point on the Internet. But to my mind, the notion that freedom of speech is absolute is a chimera. In Germany for example, there are still people who deny the extent of the Holocaust in the manner described above, but what the law does do is deny such people a democratic political platform and makes their actions subject to civil laws quite similar to libel or slander.
[Edited for bad tpying]
It is not an offence to question all of the above. It is an offence to claim that those events are did not happen or were substantially exaggerated.
"In Germany... the historical reality of the Holocaust is anchored in law as legally indisputable, like the fact that the Earth is round"
- Richard Evans, Telling Lies About Hitler, page 41
Richard Evans, as part of his work as an expert witness in the libel trial Irving v Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt, came up with a set of lowest common denominator criteria for what constitutes a Holocaust denier (page 118-119):
a) The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million; it amounted to only a few hundred thousand, and was thus similar to, or less than, the number of German civilians killed in Allied Bombing raids.
b) Gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time
c) Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership had a programmeof exterminating Europe's Jews; all they wished to do was deport them to Eastern Europe
d) 'The Holocaust' was a myth invented by Allied propaganda during the war and sustained since then by Jews who wished to use it to gain political and financial support for the State of Israel or for themselves. The supposed evidence for the Nazis' wartime mass murder of millions of Jews by gassing and by other means was fabricated after the war
As for skepticism, I believe it was Robert Jan van Pelt who was skeptical that so many people could have been killed at Auschwitz extermination camp based on the logistics of killing and disposal of bodies, but after studying the blueprints and plans as well as documentation from witnesses and camp guards, he came to the conclusion that in a relatively short space of time that Auschwitz was fully operational, 1.1 million people were killed because the logistics made it eminently feasible.
So skepticism is not proscribed, but out-and-out denial of historical facts supported by a documentary mountain of evidence, certainly is.
It is possible to argue that to make denial of the Holocaust a criminal offence, is to curtail freedom of speech, and I've seen several essays on that point on the Internet. But to my mind, the notion that freedom of speech is absolute is a chimera. In Germany for example, there are still people who deny the extent of the Holocaust in the manner described above, but what the law does do is deny such people a democratic political platform and makes their actions subject to civil laws quite similar to libel or slander.
[Edited for bad tpying]
The second world war was 30 years before I was born & thousands of miles away.Everything I know about it comes from books & television.
However,this much is common sense:man kind is inclinded to do two things
1. embellish
2.Exagerate....especially when it concerns the evil deeds of one's adversaries.
That's simply human nature.
The fact that the 'truth' of the holocaust has to be 'protected' from questioning only makes me more suspecious that it either didn't happen or is greatly exagerated!
What other 'facts' of history are protected by law?None that I can think of.If I suggest that slavery never existed in the USA..I'm an idiot,BUT not a criminal!
PS..I'm 1/4 Jewish..so,don't try to peg me as a anti-semite.However,the fact that anyone who questions the holocaust is exagerated is automatically accused of anti semitism further suggests to me that someone has something to hide!!
It's the fact that people 'act guilty' when it's suggested the holocaust is exagerated that makes me think it likely is!
However,this much is common sense:man kind is inclinded to do two things
1. embellish
2.Exagerate....especially when it concerns the evil deeds of one's adversaries.
That's simply human nature.
The fact that the 'truth' of the holocaust has to be 'protected' from questioning only makes me more suspecious that it either didn't happen or is greatly exagerated!
What other 'facts' of history are protected by law?None that I can think of.If I suggest that slavery never existed in the USA..I'm an idiot,BUT not a criminal!
PS..I'm 1/4 Jewish..so,don't try to peg me as a anti-semite.However,the fact that anyone who questions the holocaust is exagerated is automatically accused of anti semitism further suggests to me that someone has something to hide!!
It's the fact that people 'act guilty' when it's suggested the holocaust is exagerated that makes me think it likely is!
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
waitew said:
So what do you have any evidence of this happening?
And if you sugested that it might be a good idea to hijack a plane and fly it into the whitehouse?
I'm not going to peg you as anti-semitic. I'm either going to peg you as ignorant or as a moron.
We have nothing to hide. Heck it's not even against the law to question this in the UK. . No what we do have is everthing to fear. WW2 was bad enough the first time. I'd rather not fight it again.
"I'm not going to peg you as anti-semitic. I'm either going to peg you as ignorant or as a moron."
Perfect example of 'acting guilty'.I ask a question about the holocaust and am instantly subjected to name calling!Why?That doesn't help convince me....it makes me think I'm on to something.
Perfect example of 'acting guilty'.I ask a question about the holocaust and am instantly subjected to name calling!Why?That doesn't help convince me....it makes me think I'm on to something.
waitew said:
As I wrote "It is not an offence to question the historicity of the Holocaust".
On other hand to question it because you haven't done any research on it, is an argument from ignorance, and not an intellectual defence.
I have checked some of the documentation regarding the Holocaust as well as visiting a concentration camp or holding guetto used by the Nazis. I am no expert, but to claim other than there was a systematic extermination program against the Jews or that large numbers (millions) were killed as a direct consequence of that program is to fly against a Himalayan range of mountains of evidence.
By all means, question the evidence. But in the end, try to be intellectually honest about the reasons why you ask the question in the first place.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
waitew said:
No that wasn't name calling that is a simple conclusion based on the examination of the facts (ok there is a third option but I don't think you will find that one anymore complimentry). Anyone who is is posetion of all the facts cannot come to the conclusion that there is any reason to be suspcious about standard view of the holocaust unless they are a incaperble of rational thorugh to rather a high degree. So you are either ignorant, a moron or you have some kind of agenda.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
waitew said:
Except for the fact that it is demonstrably NOT illegal to *question* the holocaust, and yet you continue to advance that specious position, after being informed to the contrary.
That would make your inference that there must be something to holocaust denials because of the 'protection', as bogus as the original claim.
And needlessly dragging in anti-semitism would be your third strike.
Beady
Philosopher
Diamond said:
I hope geni does post the source, it's difficult to find such concise tabulation. In the meantime, however, you might want to check out such articles as this from the Holocaust Encyclopedia .
[A few minutes later] "wikipedia"?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Beady said:
Normaly I would not regard this as a particularly relibale souce for this kind of number but for an article this popular to have something like that stable over the lenght of time it has been suggests it is pretty good
An alturnative source for some of thie figures
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler
They also have used a pretty impressive set of sources/rescourses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(resources)
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Diamond said:
Here is a link to a comprehensive list of primary research repositories, studies, and other references, all coming to pretty much the same set of numbers.
http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/internet_links.htm
Beady
Philosopher
geni said:
Thanks! Never heard of this before; looks interesting!
Beady
Philosopher
CFLarsen said:
Well, here's England (sort of): http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
That was one of the first results when typing "holocaust denial" into my browser's search bar. If you're asking for a legal cite from each European country, I don't know if that's practical, here on these boards. However, the Wikipedia contains this sentence, with national links: "Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offense in Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Belgium and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences." This may not be "most" of Europe, but I'd call it a substantial part, especially since it's what turned up in less than five minutes of searchng.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Beady said:
No it isn't not even close. David Irving was called a holcaust denier so he sued for lible. He lost. Nothing to do with anti holocaust denial laws.
Israel is not in europe. You will note that your list does not include the Eruopean contries of UK, Spain, Italy,Portugal, Poland, Norway, denmark and sweaden etc.