Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Manic Moran

Two posts, neither of which contribute to the discussion of the topic, but instead both address the manner of the discussion and the discussors.

This isn't boding well, here.
I'm going to try this one last time.

Check fire.

Stop talking about the people, and start talking about the subject matter.

NTM

Mahatma coat

OK here's the OP again

Morlar wrote: »

Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'
This is a very interesting EU document :

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_cent..._crimes_en.pdf

Quote:
EU won't legislate on communist crimes
22 December 2010 Last updated at 15:55 GMT
The European Commission has rebuffed a call from several former Soviet bloc countries for the EU to legislate against the condoning or denial of totalitarian crimes.

But the Commission, which drafts EU laws, pledged to help keep the memory of such crimes alive across Europe.

The EU is treaty-bound to combat hate crimes that target national, religious or ethnic groups.

But the Commission says crimes based on politics are a national-level matter.

Last week Lithuania's Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis sent a letter to the Commission seeking to criminalise the approval, denial or belittling of communist crimes. He was supported by the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.
Diverse laws

In a report released on Wednesday, the Commission said an independent study showed that "there is no one-size-fits-all model" in the EU for dealing with the memory of crimes committed by totalitarian regimes. The Commission-funded study was completed last year.

Many European countries, including France, Germany, Hungary and Austria, have criminalised denial of the Holocaust.

EU member states have diverse ways of dealing with past totalitarian crimes, the Commission said, so the conditions for drafting EU-wide legislation in that area "have not been met".

Article 83 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU sets out areas where Brussels can define criminal offences with a cross-border dimension, including terrorism, human trafficking and corruption. But hate crimes based on political ideology are not on the list.

It would be up to the 27 member states' governments to decide if they wanted to expand the scope of that article.

The Commission said it would, however, "within the scope of its powers... contribute to the processes engaged in the member states to face up to the legacy of totalitarian crimes".
Euro MPs' pressure

The EU Council - the grouping of member states' governments - had also asked the Commission to examine whether extra EU legislation was needed to tackle the condoning or denial of totalitarian crimes.

Pressure has come from the European Parliament too. In April 2009 MEPs adopted a resolution calling for 23 August to become a "Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes".

The resolution - not legally binding - also urged the Commission and member states to boost efforts to open up secret police archives and teach European history, to make people more aware of totalitarian crimes.

The Commission noted that four EU states - the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania - have explicity criminalised the denial of crimes committed by former communist regimes, in their laws against denying totalitarian crimes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475
I haven't finished reading the entire document yet (and it would take a few days to absorb) but it does appear to be a striking double standard* here on the flimsy basis that communist crimes & repression against innocent people were 'political' and this political categorisation renders them 'local matters'.

Also notable that in some parts of the doc they say Germany had only 12 - 16 yrs of repressive regime !

Quote:
Duration of repressive regimes varies widely. For example: 4/5 years in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria and France; 12/16 years in Germany and Greece7; 20/22 years in Italy; 39 years in Spain and 44/45 years in the 10 former totalitarian Communist regimes.
*

Double standard in relation to the repeated attempts to introduce so called holocaust denial legislation across the rest of europe while deeming communist warcrimes, rape, murder, genocide and mass repression as 'political therefore local and not an eu wide matter'

marienbad

I am a bit late to this thread and it became impossible to distangle all the arguments,but for what it is worth it seems to boil down to a debate on double standards. One standard for the jews and one standard for everyone else.

But that is not really the case because the Holocaust is unique.

You could argue that more died in the gulags or under Mao. In actual numbers possibly, in percentage terms ,not a chance ,there are only 14,000,000 jews in the world today.

There is no other event to my knowledge in human history where one group people conceived an idea,constructed the means, carried through that policy , to wit- to erase a race from the face of the earth simply for being a member of that race. Even now the mind the mind boggles at the enormity of it.

Intent is what makes the Holocaust unique.

You could argue that other historical tragedies , the Irish Famine, Armenia,the native tribes in the Americas were the same .Not so- such loss of life in those tragedies was a by-product of policy and not the end goal. And please someone dont waste a post telling me to tell that to the dead natives/irish/armenians.I am in no way minimising those national disasters but they were not a systematic attempt to erase a race.


On the side issue of the jews in Hollywood, of course the jews run Hollywood.

But there is no great plot in that, the jewish experience has taught them to value education, knowledge, and portability, just in case you have to get out of town in a hurry. So it is not surprising that they are over represented in the arts. All the studios were founded by jews getting away from patent control in New York in the early years of the 20th century.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

I am a bit late to this thread and it became impossible to distangle all the arguments

It is about the double standard in how the EU proposes to deal with crimes of totalitarian regimes within europe, whereby crimes of one regime are subject to (so called) 'denial' legislation, while crimes of another regime are not. This is despite the fact that the other regime exsisted for a far longer time, murdered more people (by an order of magnitude), and affected the lives of countless more.

Mahatma coat

There is no other event to my knowledge in human history where one group people conceived an idea,constructed the means, carried through that policy , to wit- to erase a race from the face of the earth simply for being a member of that race. Even now the mind the mind boggles at the enormity of it.

Intent is what makes the Holocaust unique.

<Cough> Australian Aboriginees </cough>
Tasmania in Particular.

The Holocaust is unfortunatley not Unique, its more a symptom of Mans inhumanity to man.

The issue is Why arent those Crimes of the soviets treated in the same manner, surely if you find one Mass Genocide unplesant trhen you will find all Mass genocides equally unplesant

HavingCrack

marienbad wrote: »

I am a bit late to this thread and it became impossible to distangle all the arguments,but for what it is worth it seems to boil down to a debate on double standards. One standard for the jews and one standard for everyone else.

But that is not really the case because the Holocaust is unique.

This isn't really the point of this thread though. What we're discussing is the way the EU have made it illegal to 'deny' the Holocaust but not illegal to deny Soviet and communist atrocities that killed far more.

Unfortunately the Holocaust is not unique, the Armenian Genocide, the Soviet extermination of the Kulaks, the Ukranian famine (which is suspected of being deliberately caused to crush Ukranian nationalism), the Australian aboriginies, the Hutu attempts to eradicate Tutsi's wholesale in Rwanda and more recently ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. If the Bosnian, Croatian and Kosovo wars were not attempts to massacure entire ethnic groups I don't know what is.

marienbad

HavingCrack wrote: »

This isn't really the point of this thread though. What we're discussing is the way the EU have made it illegal to 'deny' the Holocaust but not illegal to deny Soviet and communist atrocities that killed far more.

Unfortunately the Holocaust is not unique, the Armenian Genocide, the Soviet extermination of the Kulaks, the Ukranian famine (which is suspected of being deliberately caused to crush Ukranian nationalism), the Australian aboriginies, the Hutu attempts to eradicate Tutsi's wholesale in Rwanda and more recently ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. If the Bosnian, Croatian and Kosovo wars were not attempts to massacure entire ethnic groups I don't know what is.

Surely it is the point of the thread in that it is the reason the Holocaust is regarded separately, It is unique and there is an industry bent on diminishing and denying it. The jews were targeted just because they were jews . There was no crime ,no appeal, no escape.

I dont want to diminish the examples above but they are not the same.
For examination in the case of the Kulaks it was political and many escaped by changing their 'views' or sides. The Ukrainian famine I dont know too much about but you yourself have shown that it is not the same in that it was an attempt to destroy Ukrainian nationalism not to eliminate a race.

The breakup of the Balkans was ethnic cleansing without question but that is different from genocide. Ethnic cleansing is about the removal of a race of people from a territory, If it can be done by killing them -fine , but driving them off is the next best thing. The main goal is territory.

As far as I am aware Armenia and Rwanda are again examples of ethnic cleansing but I dont know enough about them so I will keep an open mind.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

Surely it is the point of the thread in that it is the reason the Holocaust is regarded separately, It is unique and there is an industry bent on diminishing and denying it.

The phrase 'holocaust industry' refers to a book by a jewish scholar whose parents were at aucshwitz, Norman finkelstein. 'The holocaust industry' of the books title is the industry which sprung up around it involving (to quote from wikipedia)

"that argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel.[1] According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust"

__

If you are putting forward some kind of reverse holocaust industry theory to the established one above perhaps you can clarify this with some details?

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

The phrase 'holocaust industry' refers to a book by a jewish scholar whose parents were at aucshwitz, Norman finkelstein. 'The holocaust industry' of the books title is the industry which sprung up around it involving (to quote from wikipedia)

"that argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel.[1] According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust"

__

If you are putting forward some kind of reverse holocaust industry theory to the established one above perhaps you can clarify this with some details?

Hello Morlar, no I am not putting forward any theory at all ,I am just answering the oirginal question as to why the Holocaust is regarded differently by the EU than all other crimes including those crimes committed by communist regimes .

As regards the ''Holocaust Industry'' itself I must confess that it does make me uneasy it that it can now be used to quash any form if dissent.
It is a long way from the days when Holocaust survivors were looked down on in Israel and never spoke of, and were not encouraged to speak of their wartime experiences. That all changed with Eichmann trial 1n 1962.

But I think the growth of Holocaust industry has also been a necessary response to the growth of the holocaust denial industry in all its forms.
From those that just say , they were terrible times for everyone and its all in the past on one end of the spectrum to outright denial at the other end.

Part of the problem is that those countries pressing for the change have not faced up to their own record during the war and its immediate aftermath. For example returning jews in Poland were murdered ,some because they were associated with the communist regime but a lot because they were jews returning to potentially claim their land or property. Even the infamous ''Blood Libel'' that Palin has so grossly misappropriated was used to ferment anger. The treatment of jews in Poland in the immediate post war years was the single greatest cause in world jewry coming to the conclusion that even post war Europe was irredeemably anti-semitic and thus we had the mass exodus to Israel.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

But I think the growth of Holocaust industry has also been a necessary response to the growth of the holocaust denial industry in all its forms.

The phrase 'holocaust industry' has a very specific meaning (as referenced in the book of the same name) so the notion that there exsists some sort of 'opposite version' of that seems like quite a bit of stretch. Even if you were to accept that there was an equivalent your chronology would be wrong in my view.

HavingCrack

marienbad wrote: »

Surely it is the point of the thread in that it is the reason the Holocaust is regarded separately, It is unique and there is an industry bent on diminishing and denying it. The jews were targeted just because they were jews . There was no crime ,no appeal, no escape.

Fair enough I take your points on board. While there is absolutely no doubt there Holocaust Denial industry is alive and well you could make the coutner argument that the opposite also exists. The 'Never Again' slogan has been used by lots of Americans and Israelis to justify atrocities and ethnic cleansing of the Palestians for example.

marienbad wrote: »

I dont want to diminish the examples above but they are not the same.
For examination in the case of the Kulaks it was political and many escaped by changing their 'views' or sides.

Interestingly when talking of the Kulaks the reason it is not classed as genocide is due to our good old Soviet friends. Stalin deliberately made it clear to the Western Allies that attempting to eradicate a whole class of political opponents or social class would not be classed as genocide for the very reasons we're discussing. The Kulaks were targeted simply because they were Kulaks just as Jews were targeted simply because they were Jews. Is it fair to say that attempting to murder and deport a whole group simply because of their religion is not different in any way to attempting to murder and deport a whole group because of their social class.

marienbad wrote: »

The Ukrainian famine I dont know too much about but you yourself have shown that it is not the same in that it was an attempt to destroy Ukrainian nationalism not to eliminate a race.

As before it was a deliberate attempt to kill millions of people for holding certain political beliefs which is not allowed to be classed as genocide due to Soviet intervention in the genocide definition. The Ukranian parliament themselves have made it a crime to deny the Holodomor happened and have classed it as genocide. Interestingly the European Parliament will only class it as a 'crime against humanity' and not as genocide which is the whole point of this thread. Ukranians were systematically murdered by the Soviet regime simply because they were Ukranian. Why is it sauce for the goose but not for the gander?
If that is not double standards I don't know what is.

marienbad wrote: »

The breakup of the Balkans was ethnic cleansing without question but that is different from genocide. Ethnic cleansing is about the removal of a race of people from a territory, If it can be done by killing them -fine , but driving them off is the next best thing. The main goal is territory.

As far as I am aware Armenia and Rwanda are again examples of ethnic cleansing but I dont know enough about them so I will keep an open mind.

Actually an awful lot of groups and academics would disagree that there is a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Greogry Stanton, the founder of Genocide Watch would spring to mind.

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

The phrase 'holocaust industry' has a very specific meaning (as referenced in the book of the same name) so the notion that there exsists some sort of 'opposite version' of that seems like quite a bit of stretch. Even if you were to accept that there was an equivalent your chronology would be wrong in my view.

I dont really get your point here Morlar, Finkelstein may have popularised the phrase,but I dont think he invented it. there was a lot of unease long before he pulled it all together about the appropriation of the Holocaust by the state of Israel.

If you are saying that there is not a centrally controlled Holocaust denial
apparatus , with its own guru and apparatchiks , I fully agree and anyone that says otherwise should be posting in conspiracy section.

But there is no denying there is a continuous well funded never ending stream of Holocaust denial literature/sites/. Varying in quality from the nut-jobs pro nazi groups, the continuous reprinting of the Blood Libel theme and The Protocols boooklet, revisionist historians, and right up to States and Churches downplaying or minimising their role.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

But there is no denying there is a continuous well funded never ending stream of Holocaust denial literature/sites/. Varying in quality from the nut-jobs pro nazi groups, the continuous reprinting of the Blood Libel theme and The Protocols boooklet, revisionist historians, and right up to States and Churches downplaying or minimising their role.

I believe Finkelstein may have invented the phrase 'holocaust industry', certainly the meaning is indelibly linked to his book which now defines it.

I don't accept your notion that there is some sort of an 'equivalent opposite' to the holocaust industry. Or that the holocaust industry was a 'reply in kind' of any sort.

Grouping the various aspects above and calling it 'the holocaust denial industry' is not something I would agree with. The term 'holocaust denial' itself is unclear and incredibly misleading and can be used to incorrectly cover a multitude of thought or opinion or beliefs. It would kind of be like trying to group rapists and mass murderers along with people who don't have a parking ticket and proposing one remedy or approach to dealing with them all. So while the 'holocaust industry' is clear and well defined the 'holocaust denial industry' invention is (it seems to me) based on nothing of substance and completely misleading and deceptive.

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

I believe Finkelstein may have invented the phrase 'holocaust industry', certainly the meaning is indelibly linked to his book which now defines it.

I don't accept your notion that there is some sort of an 'equivalent opposite' to the holocaust industry. Or that the holocaust industry was a 'reply in kind' of any sort.

Grouping the various aspects above and calling it 'the holocaust denial industry' is not something I would agree with. The term 'holocaust denial' itself is unclear and incredibly misleading and can be used to incorrectly cover a multitude of thought or opinion or beliefs. It would kind of be like trying to group rapists and mass murderers along with people who don't have a parking ticket and proposing one remedy or approach to dealing with them all. So while the 'holocaust industry' is clear and well defined the 'holocaust denial industry' invention is (it seems to me) based on nothing of substance and completely misleading and deceptive.

Hello Morlar, I dont want to get bogged down in an arguments about terms and who and when they were coined. I dont think they are particularly germane to the issue.

That the Holocaust was denied and continues to be denied is surely beyound dispute. This has being going on even as it was happening when the Allies as we now know were much more au fait with what was going on but choose to ignore or downplay or disparage the evidence. There is an argument that such knowledge was meaningless as there was nothing that could be done, but the fact is what was known and when was denied and this continued after the war.

My understanding of the original Holocaust denial laws was that it was to ground such discussions in correct historical methodology. That it happend is a fact. That it was state policy and was carried out as state policy is a fact. That between five and six million died is a fact. That the manner, means and location of their deaths is a fact.

These facts have been arrived at using correct historical methods and they can only be queried in that manner. But they can be queried.

Thus ''it never happened and you cant prove it'' school of history is out as is the falsifying of historical sources a la Mr Irving is out.

Mahatma coat

OK Heres where I see the Double standard

It is a Crime to deny the Holocaust or to
"Belittle the suffering of the Victims''

How is refusing to acknowledge the Crimes of the Soviets any different??

unfortunatley there was NOTHING Unique about the holocaust, its happened before It wil happen again, as long as one group of people sees it as advantageios to disinfranchise another group there will always be this sort of thing

marienbad

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Heres where I see the Double standard

It is a Crime to deny the Holocaust or to
"Belittle the suffering of the Victims''

How is refusing to acknowledge the Crimes of the Soviets any different??

unfortunatley there was NOTHING Unique about the holocaust, its happened before It wil happen again, as long as one group of people sees it as advantageios to disinfranchise another group there will always be this sort of thing

OK Mahatma , there have been many instances of mass loss of human life
through war, famine, persecution . But in non of those was it devised planned and carried out by the state whereby the sole aim was to eliminate a race of people just because they were of that race.

The Holocaust happened despite the war and not because of it. The Germans (and their allies) were still killing jews when the Russians were only miles away.It was one of the centrals goals of on Nazism from start to finish.

That other historical events may have had greater loss of life in terms of sheer number I am not disputing .But in % nothing comes close. But that is not what makes the Holocaust unique. What makes it unique in intent.

You show me any other example whereby the state made it a policy to eliminate a race of people and then set about doing it. And not a couple of hoods in a back room with nothing documented, but where the whole apparatus of the state, legal,military,civil is co-opted in a systematic and documented way to achieve that goal.

If I could put it this way, without in anyway trivialising all the issues - it is the difference between the old fashioned defintion of 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder. In the first instance the objective is to kill the victim ,in the second instance the victim dies during the carrying out of another act, a mugging a robbery,a land clearance, .

It is the intent that makes the Holocaust unique

Mahatma coat

there are NO native Tasmanian Aboriginals.

NONE, every single one of them was eradicated in a state sponsored program, now I dont want to get into a Percentages game with you because ultimatley its irelevant.

but theres a WORSE Genocide by Your Standards.

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

there have been many instances of mass loss of human life
through war, famine, persecution . But in non of those was it devised planned and carried out by the state whereby the sole aim was to eliminate a race of people just because they were of that race.

I don't accept the premise here that there is any meaningful difference between trying to eliminate all members of a racial group as opposed to trying to eliminate all members of another group (one based on nationality, class, regional etc).

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

Hello Morlar, I dont want to get bogged down in an arguments about terms and who and when they were coined. I dont think they are particularly germane to the issue.

I also do not want to get bogged down in arguments around terms. However in the context of you introducing one ('holocaust denial industry') in a manner that suggests this is some sort of an equal opposite to the accepted term of ‘holocaust industry’ or, for you to claim that this fictional ‘holocaust denial industry’ triggered the actual holocaust industry - then so long as you keep saying that then I will continue to disagree with you & we will continue to be bogged down in arguments about terms.

marienbad wrote: »

That the Holocaust was denied and continues to be denied is surely beyound dispute.

So what ? I mean that literally. Spell out what’s the worst that can happen and how likely realistically (percentage wise) is the danger of that?


If someone says 'No Irish people died in the famine' then I wouldn't propose to put that person in prison for it.

If they didn't say 'no Irish people died' but were to question or voice doubts about certain ancillary aspects of the accepted narrative then I also would not look to see them put in prison for that.

If that rule had been in place in Irish history then scholarly research in this area would have been utterly stifled. Also the death toll would be vastly increased on where it currently is and that would also be a 'fact'.

marienbad wrote: »

This has being going on even as it was happening when the Allies as we now know were much more au fait with what was going on but choose to ignore or downplay or disparage the evidence. There is an argument that such knowledge was meaningless as there was nothing that could be done, but the fact is what was known and when was denied and this continued after the war.

The Russian allies also ran concentration camps, gulags where countless people died in horrific conditions, or were civilians were mass raped or mass executed. They also persecuted the white Russians, Cossacks, ukranians with an eye to exterminating them and they (ussr) were on their (allied) side so the fact that there was a war going on while bad things happened is relevant. The allies knew a lot of things during the war and after the war which they did not publicise then. For example the treatment of Polish officers & intellectuals by their ALLY Russia was known. There is even a reasonable chance that the polish General Sikorski was murdered to appease those on the Russian side because of this.

marienbad wrote: »

My understanding of the original Holocaust denial laws was that it was to ground such discussions in correct historical methodology. That it happend is a fact. That it was state policy and was carried out as state policy is a fact. That between five and six million died is a fact. That the manner, means and location of their deaths is a fact.

‘Facts’ change. Have done and will continue to do so and this is the normal progression of history. What today is accepted as fact tomorrow may not, often our knowledge increases, we learn more through open dialogue and a climate and academic enviornment condusive to open investigation and so this way the truth is naturally refined. What you present there as irrefutable facts (which you can go to prison for publicly doubting in some parts of Europe) are in cases estimates or opinions or beliefs. I do not necessarily agree with all of those. State Policy ? There is a whole area of discussion around this which centre around the 2 schools of thought Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism. Both valid, conflicting theories. There is also debate on whether or not approaching this as a monocausal event is valid. Estimates of the numbers of people who died are estimates. Also estimates of where and beliefs around exactly how.

There is also such a thing as open debate and disagreement. Asserting one version of the ‘ultimate truth’ legislatively is an extremely sinister and dangerous approach in the context of a historical discussion. You would also need to specify the holocaust denial laws of the country in question btw as across Europe they vary considerably.

I disagree with the basic assumption behind this that there exsists a moral or legal right to ‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’ either in the context of historical discussions, scientific, political or religious ones among the general public. In fact that phrase ‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’ is an inconcievably arrogant and presumptious, almost stalinistic kind of a statement.

I disagree with you fundamentally that it is reasonable or justifiable to legally enforce one and only version of history. I would be of the same opinion of ANY historical event including the Irish famine or independence era Ireland conflict or ethnic strife. No event in history should be legally ring fenced, (especially one which is of key strategic importance to powerful political lobby groups and to the modern political world) as this has the effect of being ‘thought crime legislation’ to defer open and honest debate.

marienbad wrote: »

These facts have been arrived at using correct historical methods and they can only be queried in that manner. But they can be queried.

As mentioned the laws across Europe vary considerably. To claim that ‘well you can disagree so long as you disagree in the correct manner’ is a weak defence and ignores the overwhelming intent of this legislation.

marienbad wrote: »

Thus ''it never happened and you cant prove it'' school of history is out as is the falsifying of historical sources a la Mr Irving is out.

What exactly is out and in what way is it ‘out’ ?

marienbad

Hello Morlar , My reply seems to have got lost So I will try again

Of course there is a Holocaust Denial Industry ,I dont really see how you can dispute that as in the same way I dont dispute there is a Holocaust affirmation industry , But I dont see your point on debating this terminology

Of course the Holocaust denial industry did not trigger the Holocaust industry. The Holocaust triggered the Holocaust industry !

You say So what to denial of the holocaust and ask me to spell out % wise what would happen. I cant believe you are seriously asking me that question after what happened in Europe .

These statutes in no way interfere with historical research , if they did the vast majority of historians would be up in arms about it in a similar way to the scientists are about creationism/intelligent design being taught in the classroom.

Can I ask you before we go too much further if you accept the broad outlines of the Holocaust as fact?

That it was a fundamental part of Hitler's thinking
That it was a central part of Nazi ideology
That it was conceived and carried out at Hitlers behest
That all organs of the state, legal,military, civil wre co-opted on to this enterprise
That between 5 and 6 million jews died

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

You say So what to denial of the holocaust and ask me to spell out % wise what would happen. I cant believe you are seriously asking me that question after what happened in Europe .

You are working from an assumption of unspecified 'dire consequences', I am asking you to spell them out clearly. And also to (if possible) calculate roughly the likelihood of these unspecified 'dire consequences' of becoming reality in a world without holocaust denial legislation.


Asking you the consequences and also the likelihood seems sensible to me when you are using those unspecified dire consequences to attempt to jusfity repressive legislation that attempts to (in your words) to

‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’

or, to ground My discussion (or yours) to someone elses definition of 'correct' methodology.

Without defining and clarifying these dire consequences it's like some kind of elephant in the room. Literally, what is the worst that can happen and how realistically is the likelihood of this coming to pass ? Balance your unknown dire consequences and the unknown likelihood of them coming to pass against restrictions on expression and civil liberties ? I would err on the side of civil liberties on this one.

marienbad wrote: »

These statutes in no way interfere with historical research , if they did the vast majority of historians would be up in arms about it in a similar way to the scientists are about creationism/intelligent design being taught in the classroom.

We have only your word for this and the repressiveness of this legislation would itself defer detractors. The hysterical ostracisation is enough to deter discussion on this subject as a whole in my opinion. Not just in the world of historians and historical researchers, also in the media, for example, when was the last time you saw a television documentary about holocaust denial legislation ? Or one which presented the other side of the story ?

Holocaust denial legislation does interfere with free expression of thought and of ideas. That is the purpose of it. It does contribute to creating a climate which is repressive and that climate is what restricts research and restricts the free expression of ideas.

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask you before we go too much further if you accept the broad outlines of the Holocaust as fact?

That it was a fundamental part of Hitler's thinking
That it was a central part of Nazi ideology
That it was conceived and carried out at Hitlers behest
That all organs of the state, legal,military, civil wre co-opted on to this enterprise
That between 5 and 6 million jews died

No. I do not accept constrictive limitations imposed by one side on an open discussion. Those broad strokes, or as you put it 'THE broad outlines of holocaust' are your broad outlines and are a bit too broad for me. I also disagree with your fundamental approach that there can be only one truth and it is your truth and that others should submit to agreement before we can proceed. I have not sought to impose such pre-conditions on this or any other discussion or thread and it would not enter my head to attempt to do so. The fact that you do this almost instinctively, or rather unconcious to the implications of this is indicative of the mentality behind this legislation. It (so called holocaust denial legislation) is a sinister development in my view and far more realistically dangerous to liberties than any of your unspecified 'dire consequences' of unknown levels of concievability.

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

You are working from an assumption of unspecified 'dire consequences', I am asking you to spell them out clearly. And also to (if possible) calculate roughly the likelihood of these unspecified 'dire consequences' of becoming reality in a world without holocaust denial legislation.


Asking you the consequences and also the likelihood seems sensible to me when you are using those unspecified dire consequences to attempt to jusfity repressive legislation that attempts to (in your words) to

‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’

or, to ground My discussion (or yours) to someone elses definition of 'correct' methodology.

Without defining and clarifying these dire consequences it's like some kind of elephant in the room. Literally, what is the worst that can happen and how realistically is the likelihood of this coming to pass ? Balance your unknown dire consequences and the unknown likelihood of them coming to pass against restrictions on expression and civil liberties ? I would err on the side of civil liberties on this one.



We have only your word for this and the repressiveness of this legislation would itself defer detractors. The hysterical ostracisation is enough to deter discussion on this subject as a whole in my opinion. Not just in the world of historians and historical researchers, also in the media, for example, when was the last time you saw a television documentary about holocaust denial legislation ? Or one which presented the other side of the story ?

Holocaust denial legislation does interfere with free expression of thought and of ideas. That is the purpose of it. It does contribute to creating a climate which is repressive and that climate is what restricts research and restricts the free expression of ideas.



No. I do not accept constrictive limitations imposed by one side on an open discussion. Those broad strokes, or as you put it 'THE broad outlines of holocaust' are your broad outlines and are a bit too broad for me. I also disagree with your fundamental approach that there can be only one truth and it is your truth and that others should submit to agreement before we can proceed. I have not sought to impose such pre-conditions on this or any other discussion or thread and it would not enter my head to attempt to do so. The fact that you do this almost instinctively, or rather unconcious to the implications of this is indicative of the mentality behind this legislation. It (so called holocaust denial legislation) is a sinister development in my view and far more realistically dangerous to liberties than any of your unspecified 'dire consequences' of unknown levels of concievability.

will you give me your outline of the holocaust then and we will know where we stand ?

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

will you give me your outline of the holocaust then and we will know where we stand ?

No, because I don't think it fits into neat soundbites of that sort and I do not have time to write a book on this right now

Also bear in mind this thread is . . . believe it or not - Not about the holocaust nor is it about jews.

It is about the double standard around how crimes of different regimes are treated within europe.

Re the holocaust I'd broadly fall under the functionalist school on this subject, it is not a monocausal event. I could never agree with people who view it as such. Classic functionalist authors like Browning - I would have issues with, so basically I would not be 100% in agreement with him either.

To give you one example in his most famous book he specifies in the opening that he blatantly ignored information where it contradicted his premise in favour of information which was in alignment. Bear in mind he is a mainstream holocaust historian (who btw was called for the defence in the Irving trial - though I believe Irving later said he was the only witness of any worth).

Perhaps now you can respond to some of the points made in recent posts rather than ignore them in favour of trying to impose pre-conditions on a discussion or to respond to them with a question ?

marienbad

Morlar wrote: »

No, because I don't think it fits into neat soundbites of that sort and I do not have time to write a book on this right now

Also bear in mind this thread is . . . believe it or not - Not about the holocaust nor is it about jews.

It is about the double standard around how crimes of different regimes are treated within europe.

Re the holocaust I'd broadly fall under the functionalist school on this subject, it is not a monocausal event. I could never agree with people who view it as such. Classic functionalist authors like Browning - I would have issues with, so basically I would not be 100% in agreement with him either.

To give you one example in his most famous book he specifies in the opening that he blatantly ignored information where it contradicted his premise in favour of information which was in alignment. Bear in mind he is a mainstream holocaust historian (who btw was called for the defence in the Irving trial - though I believe Irving later said he was the only witness of any worth).

Perhaps now you can respond to some of the points made in recent posts rather than ignore them in favour of trying to impose pre-conditions on a discussion or to respond to them with a question ?

Fair enough Morlar if you choose not to answer , but at the same time you are talking to me in soundbite and asking for soundbite answers.

But as you say back to the main thread issue and those unanswered questions.

There is one unanswered question from my very first post and that question is the one that sets the holocaust apart from any other event.

And that is the issue of intent. No other crime set out with a stated state policy to eliminate a race of people just because they were members of that race. That was its only purpose. That is what makes it different .

No one on this thread has disputed that intent. As I said it is 1st degree murder and 2 degree murder .

I think I have been open in my views and acknowledged my ignorance where it has been pointed out. I will answer any question put to me - no if ands buts or caveats. I come to these threads to broaden my knowledge and not to push a point of view.

So in that spirit Morlar I ask you did six million jews die at the hands of Nazi Germany ?

,

Morlar

marienbad wrote: »

And that is the issue of intent. No other crime set out with a stated state policy to eliminate a race of people just because they were members of that race. That was its only purpose. That is what makes it different .

To recap there are posts above which you completely ignored ? No ?

To respond to this one again I would say that there is no meaningful difference between exterminating a group on one basis rather than exterminating (or attempting to ) a group on another basis. Class, Race, Sex, Orientation, Nationality, Regional origin etc. (also you are assuming agreement that it was state policy). There is no meaningful difference if a person is shot in the back of the neck for being an intellectual, an officer or for being of one religon or another. Acts of trying to exterminate a group based on their membership of that group would be equal.

marienbad wrote: »

So in that spirit Morlar I ask you did six million jews die at the hands of Nazi Germany ?

,

Again you are responding to posts with 'point blank' simplistic types of questions. To answer this one is simple. I do not know exactly how many jews died in Germany or Russia or any occuppied countries during WW2.

Again this thread is not about the holocaust or about jews. I would ask you to review some of the posts above rather than simply ignore them in favour of throwing 'aha gotcha' types of questions back into the thread. All of which is notwithsdanding the fact that my opinions, beliefs, doubts etc on any apsect of that subject are essentially none of your business. This thread is NOT about the holocaust or jews as I have said repeatedly.

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

It is about the double standard in how the EU proposes to deal with crimes of totalitarian regimes within europe, whereby crimes of one regime are subject to (so called) 'denial' legislation, while crimes of another regime are not. This is despite the fact that the other regime exsisted for a far longer time, murdered more people (by an order of magnitude), and affected the lives of countless more.

Who, in the EU, has denied Soviet crimes??
Still no answer!!!!!!!

Who denies the Holocaust???
No shortage of individuals or groups.

No comparison.
No 'double standard'.

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

I believe Finkelstein may have invented the phrase 'holocaust industry', certainly the meaning is indelibly linked to his book which now defines it.

I don't accept your notion that there is some sort of an 'equivalent opposite' to the holocaust industry. Or that the holocaust industry was a 'reply in kind' of any sort.

Grouping the various aspects above and calling it 'the holocaust denial industry' is not something I would agree with. The term 'holocaust denial' itself is unclear and incredibly misleading and can be used to incorrectly cover a multitude of thought or opinion or beliefs. It would kind of be like trying to group rapists and mass murderers along with people who don't have a parking ticket and proposing one remedy or approach to dealing with them all. So while the 'holocaust industry' is clear and well defined the 'holocaust denial industry' invention is (it seems to me) based on nothing of substance and completely misleading and deceptive.

Your fetish for ownership of the 'Holocaust
Industry' is creepy and unpleasant.
Your enthusiasm for downplaying anti semitic
crimes and attitudes is only matched by
your zeal to prove the Holocaust is only one of many
'genocides', and nothing special.
Why the resentment???

depaly

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Heres where I see the Double standard

It is a Crime to deny the Holocaust or to
"Belittle the suffering of the Victims''

How is refusing to acknowledge the Crimes of the Soviets any different??

unfortunatley there was NOTHING Unique about the holocaust, its happened before It wil happen again, as long as one group of people sees it as advantageios to disinfranchise another group there will always be this sort of thing

Nothing unique about the Holocaust.
No big deal.
Then why all the hoohah from you
about Soviet crimes????

depaly

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there are NO native Tasmanian Aboriginals.

NONE, every single one of them was eradicated in a state sponsored program, now I dont want to get into a Percentages game with you because ultimatley its irelevant.

but theres a WORSE Genocide by Your Standards.

Some more irrelevant 'whataboutery'!!!!
Tasmania isn't in the EU......

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

I also do not want to get bogged down in arguments around terms. However in the context of you introducing one ('holocaust denial industry') in a manner that suggests this is some sort of an equal opposite to the accepted term of ‘holocaust industry’ or, for you to claim that this fictional ‘holocaust denial industry’ triggered the actual holocaust industry - then so long as you keep saying that then I will continue to disagree with you & we will continue to be bogged down in arguments about terms.



So what ? I mean that literally. Spell out what’s the worst that can happen and how likely realistically (percentage wise) is the danger of that?


If someone says 'No Irish people died in the famine' then I wouldn't propose to put that person in prison for it.

If they didn't say 'no Irish people died' but were to question or voice doubts about certain ancillary aspects of the accepted narrative then I also would not look to see them put in prison for that.

If that rule had been in place in Irish history then scholarly research in this area would have been utterly stifled. Also the death toll would be vastly increased on where it currently is and that would also be a 'fact'.



The Russian allies also ran concentration camps, gulags where countless people died in horrific conditions, or were civilians were mass raped or mass executed. They also persecuted the white Russians, Cossacks, ukranians with an eye to exterminating them and they (ussr) were on their (allied) side so the fact that there was a war going on while bad things happened is relevant. The allies knew a lot of things during the war and after the war which they did not publicise then. For example the treatment of Polish officers & intellectuals by their ALLY Russia was known. There is even a reasonable chance that the polish General Sikorski was murdered to appease those on the Russian side because of this.



‘Facts’ change. Have done and will continue to do so and this is the normal progression of history. What today is accepted as fact tomorrow may not, often our knowledge increases, we learn more through open dialogue and a climate and academic enviornment condusive to open investigation and so this way the truth is naturally refined. What you present there as irrefutable facts (which you can go to prison for publicly doubting in some parts of Europe) are in cases estimates or opinions or beliefs. I do not necessarily agree with all of those. State Policy ? There is a whole area of discussion around this which centre around the 2 schools of thought Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism. Both valid, conflicting theories. There is also debate on whether or not approaching this as a monocausal event is valid. Estimates of the numbers of people who died are estimates. Also estimates of where and beliefs around exactly how.

There is also such a thing as open debate and disagreement. Asserting one version of the ‘ultimate truth’ legislatively is an extremely sinister and dangerous approach in the context of a historical discussion. You would also need to specify the holocaust denial laws of the country in question btw as across Europe they vary considerably.

I disagree with the basic assumption behind this that there exsists a moral or legal right to ‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’ either in the context of historical discussions, scientific, political or religious ones among the general public. In fact that phrase ‘ground public discussions to the correct methodology’ is an inconcievably arrogant and presumptious, almost stalinistic kind of a statement.

I disagree with you fundamentally that it is reasonable or justifiable to legally enforce one and only version of history. I would be of the same opinion of ANY historical event including the Irish famine or independence era Ireland conflict or ethnic strife. No event in history should be legally ring fenced, (especially one which is of key strategic importance to powerful political lobby groups and to the modern political world) as this has the effect of being ‘thought crime legislation’ to defer open and honest debate.



As mentioned the laws across Europe vary considerably. To claim that ‘well you can disagree so long as you disagree in the correct manner’ is a weak defence and ignores the overwhelming intent of this legislation.



What exactly is out and in what way is it ‘out’ ?

The Holocaust is denied and your answer is:-
'so what??'
That perhaps is your 'ultimate truth', which is
as you say, 'extremely sinister and dangerous'.

You state that 'No event in history should be legally ring fenced'.
So what are going on about Soviet crimes for in that case???
By your warped reasoning on the Holocaust -
if somebody denied Soviet crimes, it would be
a case of 'so what??' in your book, wouldn't it???!!!!!