Should Holocaust denial really be a crime?

off the street. A plain old you're wrong would have sufficed. This back and forth with everyone here has been enlightening, and I will concede only this point. OK, outlawing this sort of speech, as much as it upsets me, you may have noticed?, may not be the right thing to do. Damn I hate having to admit that. The image of these clowns dodging overly amourous fellow felons is just too rich.

However, I still think that all of you, with a few exceptions, still treat this as a minor social faux pa, on a par with jaywalking or something. These people are dangerous to the society at large, and especially dangerous to a particular segment of society.

I still feel there is nothing even vaguely legitimate about a deniers so called questions. Because there is no other side, as I've said on several occaisons.

They aren't kooks, or ignorant red necks, or whatever other name is cast at them. The leaders of this movement are educated, and increasingly articulate spokesmen of their twisted cause. An attempt to "hear thier side of the story" gives them a legitamacy they don't deserve.

Amen sister! This answer so eloquently answer the question. The Holocast happened. Millions of men, women and children died horribly period. There can be no debate on it.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by gallopinghordes]

By all means, we should allow debates. Many are still drowning in ignorance. The evidences of holocaust is undeniable, no matter how much spin anti-semites dish out. The truth will always stand on its own and jew haters will be uncovered during the debates - prejudical ignoramus.

In the past, apathetic folks will just listen and follow whoever talks the loudest and follow like sheeps. But not this era. While it is not our fault for our ancestors doing, nor need we apologise for their actions, it is time we recognised the errors of pasts and not allow it to happened again, such as genocides - the utterly reprehensible and uncomprehensible stupidity of hate against humanity and its diverse communities, be it just one murder or a billion slaughtered.

Live and let live. But if anyone thinks he is free to use our modern society's brand of freedoms to influence and instigate hate against other communities, think twice again. Truth is self evident no matter how much lies or oratory skills are sugar coated.

Crimes against humanity, be it one case or billions, will be given trial. There are justice institutions in every country. Should such national justice be lacking, there is still a worldwide social justice institution called conscience.

No honest modern man will step aside and allow criminals free reign again, and will take up arms if necessary to stop injustices by criminals against fellow men who seek only to live in peace and freedom with their neighbours or communities.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by SeekerofTruth101]

Previously undecided, I think I may now have an answer for the thread question. Disclaimer: My answer only applies to what I think Canadian laws should be, not any other country. I think each country has to decide on Holocaust Denial laws for themselves, based on their situation.

I think that in Canada it would be unnecessary to make Holocaust Denial a crime, because we already have hate crime laws.

This topic was really hard for me to come to a conclusion on and I have a lot of conflicting thoughts and feelings about it.

One the one hand, I do support freedom of speech and thought. On the other, I don't support using the Holocaust to spread hatred based on religion, which seems to be the main motivation for most Holocaust deniers. I don't have a huge problem with people wanting to know more about the Holocaust and wouldn't want to stifle any historical research. I do have a huge problem with people using research on the Holocaust to promote hatred against a religion.

I can't even remember the last time a thread made me think so much or gave me so much trouble coming to a decision. In the end, I think it comes down to how I was raised. I wasn't born in a country with the First Amendment and my mother taught me that my right to point fingers ends at the other person's nose. And that is why I don't have a problem with the hate crime laws in my country and feel that any abuse of Holocaust research would fit under them quite nicely.




Note: I reserve the right to revise this opinion if a compelling enough reason is presented

duzey my friend, you have hit on the very point that I have trouble with myself. Freedom of speech and expression are the cornerstone of our society and need to be unfettered, yet that very freedom is used against society by these people to spread their message of hate and intolerance. I have very reluctently reversed my previous opinion on the law, but I can
still quite understand why such laws exist.

And notice that, in those countries, there isn't much of an issue, because Holocaust denial is complete BS, not 'scholarly research'. Its propaganda. If these guys really were only interested in uncovering the 'truth', then they'd complete their research in places where they were able to, and the rest of the world would see the truth for what it was. But thats not happening, because the truth is that the holocaust did happen.

It's 2024 and the U.S. inacts the 9/11 Denial Act. This now makes it a crime to question any part of what occurred at the WTC and all surrounding issues related. The 'official' story is the only story that will be taught in schools and revisited in film and television.
It's 2032 and the U.S. inacts the KKA Act {Kennedy/King}. This now makes it illegal to discuss or debate publically the assasination of any U.S. citizen. Again , the 'official' story must be adhered to or one could do time in our newly acquired territory Cuba.

Sorry, but any form of suppression is oppression!

at all familiar?

Freedom of speech, as Americans know it - protected under the First Amendment - is an American law, not an international one.

Other countries have their own laws - and of course their own rules of freedom;

when in Rome (which coincidentally was considered the First Reich by the Nazis), you must do as the Romans do.

That law in Austria is old - from 1948. Austria deals very seriously with this law, in each of the last 15 years there have been between 15-40 trials; there were 45 such trials in the year 2000 alone. Two-thirds ended with convictions, ynet reported.

And people in Europe know about this law (David Irving was very well aware of this law - and also aware of the warrant issued in 1989 AND he knew he was banned from entering Austria).

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Riwka]

The equivalent would be that the US, after being taken over by violent jihadis and having tens of millions killed, and most of the country destroyed, reconsitutes itself and makes it illegal to preach violent islamic extremism.

Would it be an infringement on civil rights? Yes. Should anyone be surprised it happens? No, not really.

Whether or not we agree with the laws, these countries have every right to enact them. The First Amendment only applies in the US.

Each country that has these laws is a democratic country. What right do we have to tell them what they can and can't do? Americans on this board don't seem to like having non-Americans tell them how we think the US should be run. I would think that this should go both ways.

I don't think it should be called a crime per se'. I think it should just be chalked up to one's stupidity. They evidence is just to overwhelming in favor of it actually occuring. It sad though because " Those of whom do not know their history are doomed to repeat it" - A famous person.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by FLYIN HIGH]