It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Germans Force "Thought Crime" on EU

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think holocaust deniers are terribly ignorant to say the least, but it simply is not the place of a government to police people's thoughts. It is as John Adams so poignantly put, "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." Once a government determines a person's mind to be under its jurisdiction, there is no return. This deplorable power can only grow with time. Political correctness becoming the domain of government is one of the greatest cancers of our time . It is the oppression of the few by the many, whether it be Christians having public displays of there beliefs and heritage attacked through the legal system, or even despicable people who for some reason feel compelled to defend the actions of one of the most evil regimes ever to rise to power. What people think and express is none of the government's business. If this is allowed to come to fruition, I express my pity to all who will fall to the expansion of this power in coming years... as religious are persecuted for denial of evolution, and any person for denial of any given government policy, etc.. One cannot look at this from the standpoint of whether these holocaust deniers are right or wrong; it is a matter of whether or not you believe it is the sovereign right of a government to make your mind their domain. It is the domain of a moral society to defend what is right and true through reason and conscience in written and spoken defense, but never must we dominate another's mind, else we fall on a slippery slope toward our own mental slavery. I leave you with one final quote from John Adams which applies to all modern societies,
"... The true source of our suffering has been our timidity... Let us dare to read, speak, THINK, and write... Let it be known that British Liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments... that many of our rights are inherent and essential, agreed on as maxims and established as preliminaries, even before Parliament existed."

Edit, always forget to read my work

[edit on 15-1-2007 by AHCivilE]




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
You make the assumption that Europeans feel the EC is actually representative of the views of its citizens.

That is not generally the case with the remote, dogmatic Commission. Further, its widely considered a corrupt institution on the basis it cannot get its accounts signed off.

Most people see it as top down governance rather than bottom up.

p.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
You make the assumption that Europeans feel the EC is actually representative of the views of its citizens.


Not particularly, I just accept that there is a broadly democratic legislative process within the EU, (albeit somewhat flawed), and that it is foolish to believe that a single member state can force unwnted legislation on others.

As for the propsal itself, it is of course quite impossible and futile to legislate against any individual's thought process but it can be defensible and even desirable to legislate against the promulgation of those ideas. It is, for instance, not illegal in the UK to dislike black or coloured individuals because of their skin colour but it certainly is illegal to discriminate on that basis or to incite others to adopt a similar view.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by phoenix103
You make the assumption that Europeans feel the EC is actually representative of the views of its citizens.


Not particularly, I just accept that there is a broadly democratic legislative process within the EU, (albeit somewhat flawed), and that it is foolish to believe that a single member state can force unwnted legislation on others.

As for the propsal itself, it is of course quite impossible and futile to legislate against any individuals thought process but it can be defensible to legislate against the promulgation of those ideas. It is, for instance, not illegal in the UK to dislike black or coloured individuals because of their skin colour but it certainly is illegal to discriminate on that basis or to incite others to adopt a similar view.


I and others would likely contend that the process isn't "flawed" but rotten to the core. As a trading bloc it was supposed to give parity to European businesses and consumers. It seems to do that for the former but not the latter (see the ruling re paying duty in the country the goods were purchased in as a perfect example).

Back to the German proposal. It may well have been necessary where Nazism was rampant post WW2 but not in the UK (for example). Nazism never really took hold here and is not a view held by many people at all. Nonetheless, those who do are entitled to it - even it is abhorrent to the vast majority of us.

You are right in what you say that racism is illegal and at first glance, thats a sensible step but when you see it being used to stifle debate on immigration or amusingly, on debates about religion you wonder if it was the best approach. Racism is now socially unacceptable in the UK, quite rightly. But now that legislation is in place, people cannot speak freely on crucial subjects affecting the nation.

On a purely academic level, there is on this basis (and on account of other similar laws) no true free speech in this or any other country but its a slippery slope and not one which i want us to continue down.

And yes, you are absolutley right, this kind of law has to be ratified by all member states. That said, I as a citizen have no way whatsoever of influencing my country's response. The law was propsed after the European Parliament elections and I might be wrong (there could be one in May) but I don't think there is another one until a long time after Germany hand over the Presidency, the law could already be in place by then.

Not democratic in the slightest.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
I and others would likely contend that the process isn't "flawed" but rotten to the core. As a trading bloc it was supposed to give parity to European businesses and consumers.


A bit of a tangent, but the EEC/EU was never intended to remain as simply a trading bloc, there was always a strong political element but if inconsistent trading and tax laws remain the we have to accept that the intransigent position of the UK over many years has been a significant reason for this.


But now that legislation is in place, people cannot speak freely on crucial subjects affecting the nation.


Generally I disagree. There are those who will cry "racism" as soon as a topic such as immigration is raised but I am yet to see debate prohibited as a result except where one party is clearly racist. Given the present level of media coverage and the overwhelmingly negative stance taken by many organs of the press on this subject I am frequently amazed that anyone can claim that racism laws are being used to stifle debate


I as a citizen have no way whatsoever of influencing my country's response.


Nonsense. You can contact your directly elected MEP to make your views known, you can lobby your Westminster MP, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister himself as well as taking part in or organising protest demonstations if you wish. You have every right and opportunity to oppose this proposal in very similar ways that you would oppose proposed legislation in the UK. No democratic process is without flaws but many will simply complain without making any effort to make their views heard.

Incidentally, for the avoidance of any doubt, I entirely agree that holocaust denial should not be illegal in the UK and I would be astonished if it becaome so.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by timeless test]


df1

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If a person says 'go out and start a violent revolution against the state, long live allah/hitler/marx", we'd sensibly lock them up...

I find it vulgar that you have set up a strawman where I have to deny that I am the evil incarnation of hitler, allah & marx combined prior to discussing the history of the holocast. The label holocaust denier is applied to anyone that does historical research on the holocaust who does not reach the same conclusion as the currently accepted conclusion.

I have no problem with Jews or the accepted history of the holocaust. I do have a problem with specific subjects being made verboten under penalty of law. I do have a problem with the demagoguery of the type being used on this thread.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by df1]


Tea

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan...This is not thought crime...

Punishing someone for thinking a specific thing certainly is upbraiding someone for thought crime. Who's to say what thoughts and opinions are or are not permitted?

Jailing someone for having specific opinions is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Does anyone else see this as possibility in the future:

"Knock-Knock on your frontdoor"
"This is the Homeland security police, you are being sent to jail for spreading your beliefs on the Internet that the 911 attacks on USA *WERE NOT* orchestrated and executed by radical Islamist terrorists."


It may sound extreme, but we certainly live in extreme times. I believe that in some years time people are not going to be able to post their theories about whats really happening, in a forum such as this. It will be, "Accept the official media version or get dragged away to camp!"

I hope I´m wrong though.
If someone wants to believe that the holocaust didn´t happen, that Jesus never existed , why shouldn´t he be allowed too?

as soon as one law as this gets passed there is no stopping IMO.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes it definitely is punishment for a "thought crime". I should have the right to think whatever I want, no matter how wrong or stupid it may be. If I think the holocaust never happened or that (fill in race, creed, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc...) are the cause of all that's wrong in the world, so be it. Granted there are social consequences for thinking this way but there should NOT be government prosecution because of it. So long as I don't act out (ie kill or attempt to kill or call for violence) then what am I doing wrong? Thinking differently!?

All I can say to that is Bull S!


Well said! The holocaust was without a doubt a stain on humanities history and a horrible event, however to force another to believe as you is not the way to go. Dont like what the holocaust deniers have to say? Then kill them with evidence and facts to discredit them. But dont ever ban them from believing and saying what they wish to say. To do so will only strengthen their numbers as younger generations will wonder why they are being silenced. Who cares if someone denies it? They only make themselves look like fools when they try to support their position, effectively weakening their stance and their numbers. I never understood why so many people are against debating it? From everything I have seen and heard over the years, there is overwhelming evidence to support the historical record that most people accept. If a small group of whack jobs want to challenge history, let them. Who knows, they might learn something!



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
it's already illegal in most european countries to deny the holocaust and the germans are not forcing this on anybody, each country will have to enact the legislation individually.

in my opinion, the denial of the industrial murder of such a vast number of people is so morally insidious that it is a legitimate law. thats just me though. i see it as being the same as possestion of snuff movies or worse, although you personally haven't done anything, you are supporting those that have and are therefore criminal. this is not about questioning the facts of the halocaust, anyone can question it, it is just so plainly evident and documented that to deny it happened in the face of the evidence, which unlike 9/11 is all freely available, is just plain wrong. if there were room for denial i would support it, but as far as i can see, there isn't.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Further, legislation for these kinds of things rarely work


Best tell that to the Chinese and their booming economy, plus Europe and the US support their re-education camps by buying products made with prison labor. Some may call these types of laws one step closer to the sovietization of the West.

News of the future? Deny holocaust and go make toys in prison factory for 5 years.





[edit on 15-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Whats next, are they going to try to jail people for not beliving in a god? This is very disturbing. I only hope the people who are in charge realize what a mistake it is to take away someone's choice to belive in something is.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by cuda]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frakkerface
No and im not sure why you ask that?!


Then it is a choice that the "Europeans" must make.

There are laws already against holocaust deniers, and many in Europe agree with it. If the European governments decide to keep those laws and expand on them let them, if the European people disagree, then it is them that must get off their arses and through a democratic process tell the government what they think. But the europeans won't do much like always... Apparently they only demonstrate against the U.S. for a while now, even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


[edit on 15-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Frakkerface
No and im not sure why you ask that?!


Then it is a choice that the "Europeans" must make.

There are laws already against holocaust deniers, and many in Europe agree with it. If the European governments decide to keep those laws and expand on them let them, if the European people disagree, then it is them that must get off their arses and through a democratic process tell the government what they think. But the europeans won't do much like always... Apparently they only demonstrate against the U.S. for a while now, even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


[edit on 15-1-2007 by Muaddib]


When did anyone ask the US to get involved in this? I have no idea what you are talking about...



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I'm Scottish and find it horrific that anyone could suggest a jail sentence for saying 'that didn't happen....'. Even if it did you can't jail someone for saying it never. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and laws like these are more geared at telling us what opinion to have than protecting society.

As previous members have stated in this discussion, if this is aimed at neo-Nazi/Kombat 18 style groups, even if we don't agree with their opinion on the subject they are still entitled to an opinion. If they go out and cause havock and bodily harm or any other crime then yeah, arrest them but there is NO WAY anyone should be jailed for having an opinion.

The law is also very vague, even in those countries that currently have some type of 'denying the holocaust' rules.

So where does that leave questioning it? would that also be covered by this and illegal? What if I think that maybe (as always) we never got the whole story or things weren't as bad as they were made out? What if I deny it happened exactly the way I am told it did? Am I then classed as a Neo-Nazi and jailed?

This is only another move of the pawn in the game of screwing us over big time.

And yes, it is a 'thought crime'. Telling us how to think and what opinions are right and wrong is definately a 'thought crime'.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
This law will once be viewed as a confession of sorts - may god have mercy on the perpetrators, because humanity probably won't.

very very dumb to keep this issue in the headlines, quite a few people no longer believe a single word that comes out of governments or the EU, so this 'crackdown' will undoubtedly raise the question why exactly the establishment is so keen on stifling debate and research. say what you want, if you got a degree in history, no-one espeically no politician has any right to shut you up, let alone jail you.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Holocaust deniers DO NOT DO RESEARCH. They promote propaganda. The facts are clear, the holocaust happened, the nazis tried to exterminate the jews as a people, to improve the german race and purify the nation. Holocaust deniers are simply promoting nazi-esque propaganda and using it to attack the jews.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
just out of interest (and please do not take this the wrong way) but what is the evidence? Im not trying to 'deny' it, before anyone jumps on me, im just interested.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Holocaust deniers DO NOT DO RESEARCH.


That's nice, you and i are of course fully qualified to make that assessment, along with every politician, judge, prosecutor - you name it.

this law makes it, in effect, impossible to even talk about the subject. research of any kind will therefore be limited to personal efforts, which means NO_ONE is doing research because of this law in the affected countries.

Freedom of expression remains the primary reason why censorship should be abolished, of course, although people no longer seem to care, so i argued along different lines. any way you put it, this provision does not make sense unless you're playing a game of high stakes, which depends on your ability to arbitrarily fill in a desired number of millions of victims. back in school they counted six million deaths, now they're ~ at 10, i suppose even saying that constitutes 'holocaust denial', doesn't it?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Well I'm late but I'll chip in anyway.

The situation is fairly simple. You've got certain people who wish to promote the growth of a violent, racist ideology, and their hiding behind one of the most vital political achievements in history (free speech) to protect their efforts to deceive people into supporting a racist movement of ultimately violent ends.

Just outflank them and take a clean shot at them without blasting away freedom of speech at the same time.

Their speech is only dangerous because it is used to spread lies that will lead a few foolish people to faulty conclusions about Nazism, potentially engendering support for groups which intend violence against certain minorities and oppression of human rights.

If the potential consequences of being so mislead are rendered impossible, then the speech loses most of its potential to cause harm.

The way to achieve this solution is to ban the continued organization and activity of groups which are proven in court to in any way threaten, prepare, materially support, or perpetrate racist violence, with heavy sentences attatched to this law. This can include the display of nazi symbols in such a manner that the intended effect is a threat of violence. There is, afterall, a big difference between Prince Harry wearing his bad taste on his sleeve, and a hypothetical group of Swastika bearing thugs descending upon some defenseless individual.

You then satisfy the most basic concerns of both sides- you allow sunshine to serve as the best disinfectant, but you also acknowledge and act against the dangerous potential of those who subscribe to ideologies of unreasoning hatred.

Those who may be taken in by revisionism will find themselves with nowhere to make themselves a threat, and we can trust natural selection to limit their chances of being given the opportunity to instill their flawed values in any offspring.


For the most part, Nygdan is right. The clear aim of these people is to promote a violent ideology. Attack the violent ideology, and the deniers' material participation therein will ultimately land them in prison without speech itself ever being proscribed.
And yes, they will have to defend themselves against the charge that they represent the violence of Hitler, because it will be their material support of that very thing that brings them before a judge.

Study the holocaust all you like, come to any conclusion you like, but the minute you use the conclusions to recruit for a group which can be demonstrated to actively promote violence, you then cross the line to material support of violence yourself.

Take Islam as an analogy. It's perfectly OK to preach Islam. I've said it before and I'll say it again, after serving with a Muslim in the USMC I take strong exception to any sweeping generalization against that religion. But what happens if the Imam knowingly and willfully uses Islam to unite a group of men in conspiracy to commit violence?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join