Ilegal Holocaust denial - denying people of a basic right
The Holocaust - everyone knows about it. In a society saturated with Western influence, it is hard to find someone who does not sympathise wholeheartly with the Jewish victims of the event. The Holocaust seems to be a fait accompli, set in stone - who would deny that it happened?
However, understandably, there are people who disagree with society's version of events. They believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or that it was an exaggerated event. Now, I don't have a bone to pick with these people. People have the right to believe anything they want. If Ling believes that she's invisible when noone is looking at her and she's not looking at herself, then good for her. In democratic society, we would expect that we are given the liberty of free thought.
BUT NO, in 12 countries in Europe, including Germany, Italy, Austria, France, Belgium and Switzerland, it is a CRIME to not believe that the Holocaust happened. They label these non-believers 'Holocaust deniers' and send them off to jail for their opinions. Yes, the core countries of the EU, boasting themselves to be beacons of democracy and always bagging China for its 'human rights abuses', jailing their own citizens for believing in a different version of history. It doesn't matter whether the Holocaust occured or not. That is irrelevant. The point is that in democratic countries, people are being penalised for believing in something. Imagined being jailed for believing that the Australia is square. OK, Australia is not square, and you would probably offend Australians by saying that. Off to jail, boy.
Enroaching on the freedom of free speech is the worst human rights abuse of all. If the Holocaust is true, it does not need to be enforced by law. Governments should not be so cowardly as to jail people whose beliefs they disagree with. This is sure to raise suspicions in our minds - why are these countries jialing people for being Holocaust revisionists? Is there something fishy about the truth of the Holocaust? Something they are trying to hide?
The very laws that attempt to suppress independent views on the Holocaust undermines the event's integrity. It leads to mavericks like me, who before readily accepted the truth of the Holocaust, to now view it with a touch of skeptism. Perhaps these governments will one day realise that people's beliefs cannot be suppressed.
Truth always prevails. If it doesn't, get over it.
However, understandably, there are people who disagree with society's version of events. They believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or that it was an exaggerated event. Now, I don't have a bone to pick with these people. People have the right to believe anything they want. If Ling believes that she's invisible when noone is looking at her and she's not looking at herself, then good for her. In democratic society, we would expect that we are given the liberty of free thought.
BUT NO, in 12 countries in Europe, including Germany, Italy, Austria, France, Belgium and Switzerland, it is a CRIME to not believe that the Holocaust happened. They label these non-believers 'Holocaust deniers' and send them off to jail for their opinions. Yes, the core countries of the EU, boasting themselves to be beacons of democracy and always bagging China for its 'human rights abuses', jailing their own citizens for believing in a different version of history. It doesn't matter whether the Holocaust occured or not. That is irrelevant. The point is that in democratic countries, people are being penalised for believing in something. Imagined being jailed for believing that the Australia is square. OK, Australia is not square, and you would probably offend Australians by saying that. Off to jail, boy.
Enroaching on the freedom of free speech is the worst human rights abuse of all. If the Holocaust is true, it does not need to be enforced by law. Governments should not be so cowardly as to jail people whose beliefs they disagree with. This is sure to raise suspicions in our minds - why are these countries jialing people for being Holocaust revisionists? Is there something fishy about the truth of the Holocaust? Something they are trying to hide?
The very laws that attempt to suppress independent views on the Holocaust undermines the event's integrity. It leads to mavericks like me, who before readily accepted the truth of the Holocaust, to now view it with a touch of skeptism. Perhaps these governments will one day realise that people's beliefs cannot be suppressed.
Truth always prevails. If it doesn't, get over it.
Labels: denial, deniers, free speech, Holocaust
posted by [sui generis] li mei at 11:59 pm
8 Comments:
If Ling believes that she's invisible when noone is looking at her and she's not looking at herself, then good for her.
wow!
anyway shall read this tomorrow. my eyes are tired.
first time. no big words that are too hard to digest for people like me.
holocaust reminds me of the wave and history. scary videos we watched last yr.
good one li, freedom of speech! rah! I agree with much of what you said, but some things should not be said. Freedom of speech is an ideal, but we all know that there are some things that people should not be allowed to say (mainly prejudiced, uneducated, discriminatory type things).
Not saying that they should go to jail for it- I think you're right in saying that it does raise some suspicion when governments do stuff like that. Anyway I have no real point here, good day.
Warning: Skip This comment if you don't feel like reading a half essay length debate on the pros and cons of the law :P
HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS A VERY TOUCHY SUBJECT! Well, I'm not a Jew, so it's ok with me?
Anyway, from over here, you can be happy and merry, but understand that for many people in Europe (Especially the Jews?) the Holocaust triggers very strong emotions, they have probably lost relatives or have experienced it first hand and feel was horrifying.
Not only is this a touchy subject, but all MAINSTREAM history suggests that the Holocaust did in fact happen.
Sure to a certain extent beliefs should be respected (at least in the current value system? But this is no time to argue over the subjectiveness of values) but when these beliefs hurt others, then this is not correct.
An example from Australia is defamation laws, A person might think that a new Complex is built upon a waste dump, but if you say or publish this comment, and it it turns out to be UNTRUE, and then this complex loses business, then that Complex can succesfully sue you.
As such, the Holocaust denial is, according to all mainstream, untrue, and the only thing we have to judge things on are mainstream.
It might be argued that no damage is caused by holocaust denial, but when people are personally affected, they may feel offended by this opinion. I'm not really concrete on the European situation, but such comments may also create civil unrest from the outrage against the comment it or possibly groups that support the comment.
The damage caused may possibly be compared indecent exposure or obscenity laws.
Of Course, the hurt caused here may be the same as someone else expressing an opinion that, say, China is the main cause of Global Warming? Maybe denial of Japanese massacres in china during the same WWII period?
And yet there are no laws against these opinions.
So there is not a clear cut right solution here, but I personally feel that given the upheaval that holocaust denial would cause (think people burning houses of the people who deny the holocaust), it may be better for those European countries who were at the Heart of the holocaust during WWII to ban holocaust denial.
Added quickly after:
I get the feeling that maybe you feel a Jail Term is too harsh? Well, firstly, a Jail Term serves as a much better deterrent that a fine, and secondly, I'm sure that in most cases, where someone is ACTUALLY CHARGE WITH THIS CRIME, the sentence will not be extremely, long.
In fact, I'm not sure how many cases you could find in the history that were charged with this crime. This law, although possibly controversial to us, is there to keep the peace.
~That guy who likes anonymity and promised not to right something extremely long last time? (Holy Cow, nearly 450 words of main text!)
Li, I believe we discussed this briefly when you spot it in my MSN nickname a while back.
Moving on, I mirror your thoughts on the matter. It's just irrelevant what is true or untrue, there are no grounds to deny freedom of speech.
I can understand these countries are trying to respect the victims who lost their lives torturously in one of the biggest genocidic massacres ever in the history of mankind, and definitely the one that will be most remembered. And I support that. But making it illegal to deny it is just absolute rubbish.
It's funny that Belgium is one of the pioneers of embracing modern human culture in with respect to politics. I was once told by a Belgian friend that Belgium's left wing is equivalent to America's right wing! Imagine that! Not to mention, Belgium is the 2nd ever country to legalise gay marriage, not civil unions, but gay marriage. On one hand they are so open- minded, yet simultaneously they deny the basic right of free speech.
On a random note, in some European countries it is illegal to name a child Adolf.
yeah go jerry!
the longass thesis..nice one....andrew pan i guessing? =P
hmm u did make me reconsider my position. and since i hate japs so much (in the mainland china sense) i actually want those history distorters shot. and thus i discovered irony.
however, those holocoust deniers still should be left alone. if they start changing kid's history books like those japs, then they should get jailed!
We have too many Jewish-sympathising movies/shows etc anyway. Although it is wrong to deny the Holocaust existed, the Jewish don't need to make themselves look so "pitiful" and generate the world's sympathies. Seriously, having 50 years to whine and carry on about it is enough. No wonder there are bullshitters called "Holocaust deniers" trying to create a contrast to all this.
(Note: this post is not aimed to be racist, but stating a point. No offense implied or meant.)
Freedom of speech versus the obligation of sovereignty. Is it right to let a person live and believe a lie? Isn't it the state's obligation to keep it's people as enlightened as possible. It's not as though the EU is encroaching on religious minorities, or preaching a narrow minded value system. They're merely ensuring that facts remain as facts, and that there are no misconceptions surrounding the events that did happen!
I don't understand your line of reasoning. But I do agree that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are deserved for all. But at what cost? At whose cost?
Post a Comment
<< Home