should Holocaust denial be illegal in britain

skeptichaggis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since when has evidence been a barrier to debate? Almost half of Americans (as an example) believe that evolution is a myth and that creationism explains the presence of humans on Earth. Now whilst there is a vast amount of evidence for the Holocaust, so much that it's difficult to believe someone can seriously challenge it, I put it to you that the evidence for evolution is greater by several orders of magnitude, not least because we can witness it occurring in our lifetimes.

And that's just one of the millions of beliefs that have no evidence yet are held by significant numbers of people. Just visit the conspiracy theory forum to witness some of the crazy notions people can get stuck in their heads.

And if your argument is that denying the Holocaust is somehow dangerous, ask yourself the following: Is it more dangerous than 9/11 denial? Is it more dangerous than teaching children about creationism? Is it more dangerous than science denial?

Now I am very strongly against any statement of opinion being criminilised, but if society was (for some reason) forced to criminilise just one aspect of free speech then it should be science denial. How many millions of lives, how many centuries of societal progress has been lost to that?

skeptichaggis said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about organised debate, I'm talking about them airing their views. If we want to ignore them, which is a great idea, then that's what we should do.
 
Craig B said:
Yes. Yes. Yes.

But banning it would be more dangerous still.
Click to expand...

No, no and no. Denial of science has cost millions of lives and retarded progress by hundreds of years across the globe. Denial of the Holocaust is... offensive? Insensitive? Racist? Plain stupid? All of them, yes, but I'm struggling to get a body count here, or indeed come up with any reasonable method of comparing the two.

So, unless you can come up with an explanation as to why denial of the Holocaust is literally the most dangerous opinion a human being can hold, I've nothing more to add.
 
baron said:
No, no and no. Denial of science has cost millions of lives and retarded progress by hundreds of years across the globe. Denial of the Holocaust is... offensive? Insensitive? Racist? Plain stupid? All of them, yes, but I'm struggling to get a body count here, or indeed come up with any reasonable method of comparing the two.

So, unless you can come up with an explanation as to why denial of the Holocaust is literally the most dangerous opinion a human being can hold, I've nothing more to add.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly ask that when you have just read me announce that there is something more dangerous than holocaust denial? That was the point of my post! Read the last sentence again.

But if you have nothing more to add, then don't add anything.
 
Craig B said:
How can you possibly ask that when you have just read me announce that there is something more dangerous than holocaust denial? That was the point of my post! Read the last sentence again.

But if you have nothing more to add, then don't add anything.
Click to expand...

OK, I will add something. I will add a reference to my actual question, that being

"unless you can come up with an explanation as to why denial of the Holocaust is literally the most dangerous opinion a human being can hold..."

Banning something is not an opinion.

(See, I've used bold too, but the distinction is my point is correct without it).
 
baron said:
Banning something is not an opinion.

(See, I've used bold too, but the distinction is my point is correct without it).
Click to expand...
That is not at all true. Banning something necessarily implies the existence of an opinion. The title of this thread is "Should Holocaust denial be illegal in Britain". Are you really saying that this means anything other than "It should ... " Opinion. Or "It should not ... " Opinion.

I think "It should" is a dangerous opinion.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
That is not at all true. Banning something necessarily implies the existence of an opinion. The title of this thread is "Should Holocaust denial be illegal in Britain". Are you really saying that this means anything other than "It should ... " Opinion. Or "It should not ... " Opinion.
Click to expand...

I was not saying that, no, I was simply correcting your mistake.

I've already stated, it absolutely should not be criminilised. What I took issue with was your statement saying that of all the opinions I listed, Holocaust denial was the most dangerous. I'm aware there are more dangerous things than Holocaust denial, global nuclear war (which also involves opinions, somewhere down the line) being one of them, but I'm still interested to know why Holocaust denial is the most dangerous opinion a person can hold.
 
baron said:
I was not saying that, no, I was simply correcting your mistake.

I've already stated, it absolutely should not be criminilised. What I took issue with was your statement saying that of all the opinions I listed, Holocaust denial was the most dangerous. I'm aware there are more dangerous things than Holocaust denial, global nuclear war (which also involves opinions, somewhere down the line) being one of them, but I'm still interested to know why Holocaust denial is the most dangerous opinion a person can hold.
Click to expand...
You are then stating that "should Holocaust denial be illegal in Britain?" is not a discussion of opinion? I am stating that the opinion that HD should be made illegal is more dangerous than HD itself. By that token I am stating that HD is not the most dangerous opinion.
 
Craig B said:
You are then stating that "should Holocaust denial be illegal in Britain?" is not a discussion of opinion? I am stating that the opinion that HD should be made illegal is more dangerous than HD itself. By that token I am stating that HD is not the most dangerous opinion.
Click to expand...

Well you keep changing your argument. You originally said "But banning it would be more dangerous still." Banning it is clearly not the same as believing it should be banned. If you're now saying believing Holocaust denial should be banned is more dangerous than maintaining it's an accurate description of history, there again, I agree.
 
baron said:
Well you keep changing your argument. You originally said "But banning it would be more dangerous still." Banning it is clearly not the same as believing it should be banned.
Click to expand...
Oh yes it is. Because the alternative is banning it without believing that it should be banned.
 
I'm not going to lose any sleep about it being illegal in Germany, where my understanding is (roughly) that this had been imposed on the German Constitution as part of the de-Nazification process by the Allies. Germany seems to have come to terms with the role of the German state and people in WWII better than Japan has with the role of the Japanese state or people in WWII.

I don't think it would be right to impose such a law now, but equally, I don't think it should be repealed in those places where it is illegal.
 
jimbob said:
I'm not going to lose any sleep about it being illegal in Germany, where my understanding is (roughly) that this had been imposed on the German Constitution as part of the de-Nazification process by the Allies. Germany seems to have come to terms with the role of the German state and people in WWII better than Japan has with the role of the Japanese state or people in WWII.

I don't think it would be right to impose such a law now, but equally, I don't think it should be repealed in those places where it is illegal.
Click to expand...

ETA: I don't think it is a slippery slope in Germany due to the specific history.
 
jimbob said:
ETA: I don't think it is a slippery slope in Germany due to the specific history.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
As I said above, making expressing an idea illegal is the very bottom of the slope. It can't slide further (all equally bad at that point).
Click to expand...

If the ban happened now, then I'd agree with you. However, in the context of Germany 70-years ago, I think a case could be made that it was useful.

It isn't much of a slippery slope because (as far as I am aware) the law hasn't been expanded recently. If you think it can't get worse than banning Nazi propaganda just after the worst war in history then I think you need some perspective.

First they came for the Nazis and I didn't protest because I wasn't a Nazi. Then they did nothing else.

It doesn't quite have the ring of the original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom