Holocaust Laws

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to my mind it cant. The argument would not exist without anti-semitism.

There are a number of historical writers who write statements which are incorrect. These authors see themselves as devils' advocates and they write 'alternative histories', which are spurious at best. These people are not banned or shut down. However, it appears that if the label of anti-semitism is ascribed to an idea, then we are expected to accept that it should be shut down, with no room for dissenting opinion as to whether or not the idea may be expressed. This appears like another type of intolerance to me.

I see this in relation to criticism of the Israeli State. Not jewish people, the Israeli State. Regularly, when Israeli State action is criticized, that criticism is dismissed as anti-semitism. It is an attempt to disparage an idea before the merits and demerits can be discussed.

ohnonotgmail

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There are a number of historical writers who write statements which are incorrect. These authors see themselves as devils' advocates and they write 'alternative histories', which are spurious at best. These people are not banned or shut down. However, it appears that if the label of anti-semitism is ascribed to an idea, then we are expected to accept that it should be shut down, with no room for dissenting opinion as to whether or not the idea may be expressed. This appears like another type of intolerance to me.

I see this in relation to criticism of the Israeli State. Not jewish people, the Israeli State. Regularly, when Israeli State action is criticized, that criticism is dismissed as anti-semitism. It is an attempt to discredit an idea before the merits and demerits can be discussed.

What other basis do you think for holocaust denial that is not founded in anti-semitism? These are not dissenting opinions. they are denials of fact.

Grolschevik

Pat Mustard wrote:

Of itself, is holocaust denial an illiberal idea? Can it be regarded as spurious argument without an illiberal or hateful aspect?

Rereading. For the second part of the question, I reckon so.

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What other basis do you think for holocaust denial that is not founded in anti-semitism? These are not dissenting opinions. they are denials of fact.

I don't dispute that these assertions are denials of fact. When I mentioned dissenting opinions, it was not in relation to the substantive issue of holocaust denial itself. It was in relation to to shutting down of discussion which has been labelled as anti-semitic, whether or not it is actually anti-semitic.

There are historical writers who write spurious 'alternative histories' on the basis of being devils' advocates. Many people buy into conspiracy theories and similar ideas. I presume that the underlying motive from the sale of these books is simply financial gain.

ohnonotgmail

I really have no idea what alternate history books, which are presented as fiction, have to do with holocaust denial so i'll leave it there.

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I really have no idea what alternate history books, which are presented as fiction, have to do with holocaust denial so i'll leave it there.

They are not presented as fiction. They are presented as fact.

brian_t

Pat Mustard wrote: »

They are not presented as fiction. They are presented as fact.

'alternative histories' like SS-GB or The Man in the High Castle ?

Pat Mustard

brian_t wrote: »

'alternative histories' like SS-GB or The Man in the High Castle ?

No, those are not presented as fact.

The book "1421" by Gavin Menzies is presented as a factual history book. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

Here are links to criticisms of the book, where it is pretty much rubbished:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html
http://www.1421exposed.com/html/real_menzies_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies#Criticism

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/junk-history/8953466
This last link includes the following about the book:

Unfortunately, reporter Quentin McDermott points out, his book has a credibility problem. Professional historians label it naïve scholarship or worse, straight-out fabrication. Menzies writes, amongst other things, that New Zealand Maori are not Polynesians but a cross breed of Chinese concubines and Melanesians. The evidence for this, and many similar claims, is tissue thin.

So was "1421" an eccentric and fluky publishing success? Well no. Junk History tells how Menzies, his agent, his PR company and publisher set out to milk a public thirsty for revisionist history. Menzies hired professional spin-doctors to create hype about a half formed idea. Transworld, which also publishes Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", paid Menzies, an untested first time writer, a half million pound advance. The book was finished by a team of editors and a ghost writer. Revisionism is big business.

Unlike "The Da Vinci Code", "1421" claims to be a work of fact. For all that, it appears to have involved little fact checking and next-to-no academic scrutiny. Yet as we see in the program Menzies, his publisher and agent are quite unapologetic. They have cracked the big time.

This is not just a story about ones man's wild theory. It is a parable of modern popular culture, a tale about intellectual chutzpah and about a publishing industry that knows how to extract profit from a public which wants to thumb its nose at the dry though documented history taught at school.

Perhaps it should be referred to as pseudohistory, for the purposes of clarity.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you give me an example of somebody engaged in genuine historical research who has been charged with such a crime?

Well by the very construct of Holocaust law your question cannot be answered as anyone who deviates from the official narrative regarding the Holocaust can be prosecuted.It veto's any and all opposition.
The late Ernst Zundel paid a very heavy price for his attempts to question what may be seen as certain discrepancies surrounding this event.

osarusan

Pat Mustard wrote: »

No, those are not presented as fact.

The book "1421" by Gavin Menzies is presented as a factual history book. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

Here are links to criticisms of the book, where it is pretty much rubbished:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html
http://www.1421exposed.com/html/real_menzies_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies#Criticism

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/junk-history/8953466
This last link includes the following about the book:


Perhaps it should be referred to as pseudohistory, for the purposes of clarity.

I think one problem with the 'allow them to speak and demonstrate how wrong they are' line of thinking is that it does not have that effect on everybody. Not everybody approaches each version of events with an open mind and a willingness to evaluate rational arguments.

It's hard to make the case that young-earth creationists, or advocates of homeopathy, for example, believe what they do after a careful weighing up of evidence.

Certainly, many people will come to the realisation that a particular person is actually talking nonsense, but not everybody will. Some will continue to believe things just because they want to believe them.

In the last link you gave, Menzies 'set out to milk a public thirsty for revisionist history'. He set out to tell people what they wanted to hear, and I would not be so confident that those people are all that bothered by the rubbishing of his claims in general. Some of course, will have realised the book was rubbish, but by no means everybody. In fact, for some, I'm sure the more criticism the book gets, the more concrete their belief would be that Menzies is somebody who 'tells it like it is' and is a victim of 'liberal academia' and 'the mainstream media' and other such entities.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Well by the very construct of Holocaust law your question cannot be answered as anyone who deviates from the official narrative regarding the Holocaust can be prosecuted.It veto's any and all opposition.

YOu need to read the laws you are arguing against. they do no such thing

fran17 wrote: »

The late Ernst Zundel paid a very heavy price for his attempts to question what may be seen as certain discrepancies surrounding this event.

Giving an actual Neo-Nazi as an example of a genuine historical researcher lends no credence to your post.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

YOu need to read the laws you are arguing against. they do no such thing




Giving an actual Neo-Nazi as an example of a genuine historical researcher lends no credence to your post.

In essence that is what Holocaust denial laws are.I use Ernst Zundel,who was not referenced as an example if you review the text,as his two trials in the 1980's really brought this whole issue to the fore.These trials really helped to galvanise Holocaust laws,most notably in France with the Gayssot act and many other European countries followed suit.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

In essence that is what Holocaust denial laws are.I use Ernst Zundel,who was not referenced as an example if you review the text,as his two trials in the 1980's really brought this whole issue to the fore.These trials really helped to galvanise Holocaust laws,most notably in France with the Gayssot act and many other European countries followed suit.

What exactly do you think you show by mentioning Zundel (who is a neo-nazi or perhaps you are going to disagree with that as well) ? I asked for an example of genuine historical research that has fallen foul of holocaust denial laws. you have failed to provide one.

dr.fuzzenstein

I'm sure you guys understand that Germany is in a unique position with this law?
A good article on the subject:

https://smartergerman.com/german-politics/holocaust-denial-crime-germany/

You just cannot understand it, many countries have started wars, but only Germany started 2 world wars.
That in itself is bad enough, but the genocide on the Jewish people makes it so much worse.
There is no thought worse than something like that rearing it's head again here. I'm of a generation where my parents and grandparents were affected by the war. They told me their stories, both from the perspective of children (my parents) and grown up (grandparents)
Despite never having lived it, I've heard all about it and I remember many of the older generation missing arms, legs and having other various scars. My Grandfather had a dent in his head with a bit of shrapnel embedded in his skull and my biology teacher was missing an arm.
You just couldn't have a concept of what it's like as a German visiting any neighbouring countries, even when the people are friendly at least to my mind there's always that unspoken accusation, be it real or imagined. Definitely in Holland people are not toof ond of Germans and I was blown away by the Norwegians why couldn't have been nicer.
To me people who want to revitalise Nazi Germany or are sympathetic to it, are vermin of the worst sort.
I don't know if this law is the best way to go about it, but look at today's world. People state barefaced that the Earth is flat and the Queen is a Lizard. So people are very willing to knowingly state falsehoods that are clearly untenable under any kind of logical and critical thinking. People voted trump and Brexit for God's sake! So we know that there are quite a number of people who would willingly and with malicious intent state a massive falsehood with an innocent face and if challenged would just smile and say "what?"
Now saying the Earth is flat and the Queen a lizard is all fine and dandy, but saying the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't all that bad really and the Nazis were secretly the good guys all along is not only dangerous but in Germany completely unacceptable.
I have absolutely zero sympathy with people who get banged up or fined for that, the same as with having Nazi symbols or giving Hitler salute.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What exactly do you think you show by mentioning Zundel (who is a neo-nazi or perhaps you are going to disagree with that as well) ? I asked for an example of genuine historical research that has fallen foul of holocaust denial laws. you have failed to provide one.

Ernst Zundel also questioned whether the Nazi's had contact with UFO/aliens,so no I'm not going to make a case for Zundel here.His conviction in 1985,which was overturned,and subsequent retrial definitely caused many to take notice and I believe was the catalyst towards the implementation of the Holocaust laws as they are enforced today.
Define how one could genuinely research the Holocaust and come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official dogma and not be subject to Holocaust laws?

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Ernst Zundel also questioned whether the Nazi's had contact with UFO/aliens,so no I'm not going to make a case for Zundel here.His conviction in 1985,which was overturned,and subsequent retrial definitely caused many to take notice and I believe was the catalyst towards the implementation of the Holocaust laws as they are enforced today.
Define how one could genuinely research the Holocaust and come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official dogma and not be subject to Holocaust laws?

Explain to me how one couldn't? You seem to think this is aimed at academia. The law is concerned with incitement to hatred. If you have actual research to back up a claim then how can it fall under that category. Your use of the word dogma makes me suspicious of your motives.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain to me how one couldn't? You seem to think this is aimed at academia. The law is concerned with incitement to hatred. If you have actual research to back up a claim then how can it fall under that category. Your use of the word dogma makes me suspicious of your motives.

This is becoming bizarre.I assumed,even though I was struggling to untangle your argument,you could define your position regarding how one could,with research,come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official conclusions and avoid being subject to Holocaust denial laws.
I use the term dogma because it appears to suit the argument in a literal sense.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

This is becoming bizarre.I assumed,even though I was struggling to untangle your argument,you could define your position regarding how one could,with research,come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official conclusions and avoid being subject to Holocaust denial laws.
I use the term dogma because it appears to suit the argument in a literal sense.

Very simply by having evidence to back up your claims and not using them to incite hatred. How is this so hard to understand?

Carawaystick

Of course in Ireland we have state agencies to deny that holocaust deniers are actually holocaust deniers.
a british immigrant wrote

kevinmyerse wrote:

"There was no holocaust (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists)
and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two
statements of mine are irrefutable truths."

kevinmyerse wrote:

"It is an offence in Germany to say that six million Jews did not die in the
holocaust. Very well then, I am a criminal in Germany."

kevinmyerse wrote:

"I'm a Holocaust denier."

someone complained to rté when Morning Ireland called the person who wrote the above text in a national newspaper a holocaust denier, and their complaint was upheld. the BAI determined the author was not a holocaust denier.

http://www.bai.ie/en/download/132617/ pg 26 on

Well he was just being ridiculously literal to make a point and stir up some controversy, if I recall correctly. I think what most people unfamiliar with Myers missed, was that it all really just a set-up for him to write another anti-islam article.

Pat Mustard

Carawaystick wrote: »

Of course in Ireland we have state agencies to deny that holocaust deniers are actually holocaust deniers.
a british immigrant wrote

Myers nitpicked about the round number of six million deaths and the etymology of the word holocaust, claiming to be a holocaust denier on that basis while simultaneously acknowledging the extermination of the Jewish people by the Nazis. It's like Trump saying that Mexicans like him. He can say it all he wants - it just doesn't mean anything.

This was an attempt to court controversy on the pretext of free speech. In my view, it was nothing more.

The actual 2009 Indo article was taken down but it is claimed to have been recreated here.

Carawaystick

riffmongous wrote: »

I think what most people unfamiliar with Myers missed, was that it all really just a set-up for him to write another anti-islam article.

Because anti-semitism is only wrong against certain semites...

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

You just cannot understand it, many countries have started wars, but only Germany started 2 world wars.
That in itself is bad enough, but the genocide on the Jewish people makes it so much worse.

the Holocaust wasn't even the first genocide Germany did in the 20th century, they tried to wipe out the Namaqua and Herero people in what roughly is Namibia
They also aided the Turk genociding the Armenians.

1874

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm sure you guys understand that Germany is in a unique position with this law?
A good article on the subject:

https://smartergerman.com/german-politics/holocaust-denial-crime-germany/

You just cannot understand it, many countries have started wars, but only Germany started 2 world wars.
That in itself is bad enough, but the genocide on the Jewish people makes it so much worse.
There is no thought worse than something like that rearing it's head again here. I'm of a generation where my parents and grandparents were affected by the war. They told me their stories, both from the perspective of children (my parents) and grown up (grandparents)
Despite never having lived it, I've heard all about it and I remember many of the older generation missing arms, legs and having other various scars. My Grandfather had a dent in his head with a bit of shrapnel embedded in his skull and my biology teacher was missing an arm.
You just couldn't have a concept of what it's like as a German visiting any neighbouring countries, even when the people are friendly at least to my mind there's always that unspoken accusation, be it real or imagined. Definitely in Holland people are not toof ond of Germans and I was blown away by the Norwegians why couldn't have been nicer.
To me people who want to revitalise Nazi Germany or are sympathetic to it, are vermin of the worst sort.
I don't know if this law is the best way to go about it, but look at today's world. People state barefaced that the Earth is flat and the Queen is a Lizard. So people are very willing to knowingly state falsehoods that are clearly untenable under any kind of logical and critical thinking. People voted trump and Brexit for God's sake! So we know that there are quite a number of people who would willingly and with malicious intent state a massive falsehood with an innocent face and if challenged would just smile and say "what?"
Now saying the Earth is flat and the Queen a lizard is all fine and dandy, but saying the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't all that bad really and the Nazis were secretly the good guys all along is not only dangerous but in Germany completely unacceptable.
I have absolutely zero sympathy with people who get banged up or fined for that, the same as with having Nazi symbols or giving Hitler salute.

It was a bit more complicated than that, but Germany did not start WW1?

Carawaystick wrote: »

Because anti-semitism is only wrong against certain semites...

the Holocaust wasn't even the first genocide Germany did in the 20th century, they tried to wipe out the Namaqua and Herero people in what roughly is Namibia
They also aided the Turk genociding the Armenians.

Spain/Portugal in the New world, European settlers and North American Indigenous population, Britain and a lot of places, ignoring the Famine could be conceived of as genocide, concentration camps in Boer war, Communist states of USSR and China, either by mismanagement or neglect, Famines