should Holocaust denial be illegal in britain

[skeptichaggis]

I'm a true lover of history and one of the things I really hate is to see history twisted for modern religious, political or ideological reasons. There are unfortunately many examples of this and I think I speak for all here when I say Holocaust denial is one of the very,very,VERY worse.
Should Holocaust denial be illegal in the UK then,I firmly believe so. Holocaust deniers often go on about free speech but I think that's just a bit of rubbish. Unfortunately many intelligent folk buy into it and claim that vile as Holocaust denial is it should not be illegal. Often these same folk repeat parrot like the"slippery slope"argument of the deniers.
They often fail completely to realize that in the UK if you call a black man the n word you are arrested and punished by the courts. Same happens in any other racially abusive verbal attack. Most folk see no problem with this.
Holocaust denial is exactly the same as calling a black man the n word. It is not"historical reserch" or revisionism its a racial verbal/written attack on a person/persons due to there culture and race. Its that simple.
So yes I think it should be a crime in the same way as homophobic insults are in Britain.

 

[angrysoba]

No.

 

[Craig B]

On the whole, while sympathetic, I disagree. I am very reluctant to limit freedom of speech, and the examples you give are of insults or incitement, which indeed should be banned. But if a person wants to say, all homosexuals will go to Hell, or refuses to speak to gay people, that should not be banned. If people want to state that the Holocaust never happened, but otherwise do not act violently towards Jews, I don't think anything needs to be done. The Holocaust did happen, as the abundant evidence shows, and this truth doesn't require the protection of the law.

 

[fagin]

No

 

[Francesca R]

No.

On the whole, while sympathetic, I disagree. I am very reluctant to limit freedom of speech, and the examples you give are of insults or incitement, which indeed should be banned. But if a person wants to say, all homosexuals will go to Hell, or refuses to speak to gay people, that should not be banned. If people want to state that the Holocaust never happened, but otherwise do not act violently towards Jews, I don't think anything needs to be done. The Holocaust did happen, as the abundant evidence shows, and this truth doesn't require the protection of the law.

No

These.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No it shouldn't. There are already laws covering incitement etc. I can understand why some countries that were involved in or victims of the Holocaust would have such laws but Britain was neither.

 

[Seismosaurus]

We would do the victims of the holocaust no favours by adopting the policies of their murderers.

 

[The Don]

I agree that it should not be illegal to be a holocaust denier. Those people who are should be allowed to share their views and leave themselves open to well-deserved ridicule.

If holocaust denial morphs (for example by suggesting that the holocaust that never happened should be repeated) into incitement then they should be prosecuted for that incitement.

 

[ddt]

I agree that it should not be illegal to be a holocaust denier. Those people who are should be allowed to share their views and leave themselves open to well-deserved ridicule.

If holocaust denial morphs (for example by suggesting that the holocaust that never happened should be repeated) into incitement then they should be prosecuted for that incitement.

Or if it falls foul of existing hate speech laws.

I don't see why you should have a specific criminalization of (false) views of one specific historic episode, and not of others. And in practice, it isn't needed. Most if not all holocaust deniers are not able to write a dispassionate discourse claiming the holocaust didn't happen, but will put their pamphlets, brochures and what-have-you chock full of antisemitic rage.

 

[Giz]

Being a hateful jerk shouldn't be illegal.

Encouraging others to be hateful jerks shouldn't be illegal.

Encouraging violence against someone should be illegal.



On a broader note, I would like (as someone who believes in democracy) to think that given the chance to engage in free debate, some fairly sane consensus can emerge and truly horrible ideas can be defeated.

 

[Aepervius]

Being a hateful jerk shouldn't be illegal.

Encouraging others to be hateful jerks shouldn't be illegal.

Encouraging violence against someone should be illegal.



On a broader note, I would like (as someone who believes in democracy) to think that given the chance to engage in free debate, some fairly sane consensus can emerge and truly horrible ideas can be defeated.

Probably off topic but there is a gray zone between incitement and being a hateful jerk. For example bullying. It is being a hateful jerk, but the connotation usually involved is "the world would be better without you" and certainly is the cause of suicide of some teenager.

In UK there are some form of anti bullying laws.

Now I am not pretending that holocaust denialism is the same as bullying, just that what you put above is maybe valid for the US m due to the first amendment , but in other jurisdiction might be different.

 

[psionl0]

In this day and age I would have thought that the question would be "which forms of speech should be made legal in Britain?"

 

[Craig B]

In this day and age I would have thought that the question would be "which forms of speech should be made legal in Britain?"

Do you mean that all forms of speech are at present illegal in the UK?

 

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately many intelligent folk buy into it and claim that vile as Holocaust denial is it should not be illegal. Often these same folk repeat parrot like the"slippery slope"argument of the deniers.
They often fail completely to realize that in the UK if you call a black man the n word you are arrested and punished by the courts. Same happens in any other racially abusive verbal attack. Most folk see no problem with this.

You fail completely to realize that many free speech advocates who think that Holocaust denial should not be illegal also think that racially abusive "verbal attacks" should not be illegal either. So there is no disconnect, except in your imagination.

So yes I think it should be a crime in the same way as homophobic insults are in Britain.

Neither is a crime in the US.

I will concede this much, though: perhaps the British people aren't sufficiently responsible to handle free speech. Perhaps they are better off if their betters tell them what they are and are not allowed to say. If you want to argue that the British are not sufficiently adult for the responsibility, then I suppose I cannot contradict you.

 

[The Don]

Neither is a crime in the US.

I will concede this much, though: perhaps the British people aren't sufficiently responsible to handle free speech. Perhaps they are better off if their betters tell them what they are and are not allowed to say. If you want to argue that the British are not sufficiently adult for the responsibility, then I suppose I cannot contradict you.

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, sometimes your right to free speech interferes with my right to live free of harassment. The U.S. tends towards the former (although there are both de jure and de facto restrictions to free speech in the U.S) whereas the U.K. and Europe tends towards the latter. The prohibition also tends to relate to the message, tone and how it'e delivered rather than being binary.

In the U.K. I'm free to be as homophobic as I like and indeed I could run for public office on a homophobic platform. What I'm not allowed to do OTOH is to gather a group of like-minded people together and verbally harass gay people as they go about their business.

 

[angrysoba]

I will concede this much, though: perhaps the British people aren't sufficiently responsible to handle free speech. Perhaps they are better off if their betters tell them what they are and are not allowed to say. If you want to argue that the British are not sufficiently adult for the responsibility, then I suppose I cannot contradict you.

Hmmm...and indeed it is the idea that someone is able to tell citizens what is not a permissible thought that I find particularly abhorrent about the idea of making certain forms of speech illegal.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, sometimes your right to free speech interferes with my right to live free of harassment.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with outlawing Holocaust denial.

 

[Bob001]

.....
They often fail completely to realize that in the UK if you call a black man the n word you are arrested and punished by the courts.
....

If that's true (cite?), what's the actual charge? I suspect that if the word is directed at a specific person, the crime might be harassment or simple assault. But it's hard to believe that just speaking the word ("I think Manchester has too many ....") or, say, singing it in a rap song could be an actionable crime.

Denying that a historical event occurred is an expression of ignorance, and I don't know how you criminalize ignorance. However, apparently 14 countries have found a way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/holocaust-denial-crime-or-free-speech/?_r=0

Seems to me that if you say it's taboo to even express an idea, you give it mystical power, whereas if anybody can say anything they want and others can respond "Hey, you're an idiot, and here's why," you encourage truth to prevail.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In my view the issue of "hate speech" or "incitement" and what constitutes thus is essentially one of drawing the line between what is speech, and what is illicit coercion or intimidation. That such a line needs to be drawn is uncontroversial, and on where it ought to be drawn, reasonable people can disagree. My main concern is that the judgment of what is illicit ought to be as non-arbitrary as possible, and based on the objective facts of the situation.

Regardless of which, I do not think that holocaust denial in itself could possible fall afoul of any such reasonable line.

 

[Aepervius]

Seems to me that if you say it's taboo to even express an idea, you give it mystical power, whereas if anybody can say anything they want and others can respond "Hey, you're an idiot, and here's why," you encourage truth to prevail.

Not really. That would be correct if everybody was a rational actor. It isn't the case.

Furthermore i doubt that this "mystical power" stuff work for anybody beyond the teenage. Most adult look at idea whether they are attractive to them due to various rational or irrational factor. But I have never met anybody (after a certain age) which would be interested into following something because it was forbidden. Learn about it because it is forbidden ? Yes. But not live it because it is forbidden.