losCHUNK wrote:Nigel Farge. ✔ @Nigel_FaragePhoeniX wrote:[youtube]2RMvSC1sXMQ[youtube]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-30819779
I think this is probably our best option so far.
Follow
The more, the merrier! @almurray
3:29 PM - 14 Jan 2015
Carrie Quinlan
@quinlan_carrie
.@Nigel_Farage You've changed your tune.
...It's not about materialistic goods, it's about ideas.Ryoki wrote:By that logic we shouldn't have laws at all; not being allowed to steal cars doesn't stop people from doing so either. Never took you for such an anarchist to be honest!
Not really elegant, because there's no strict definition of what hateful is.Ryoki wrote:Just looked it up out of interest, in dutcheeland we have no explicit law against it (surprising, rather thought we did) but it falls under the laws against dicrimination and incitement of hatred or violence of a particular group.
An elegant judicial solution i say.
Aye comparing it to car theft was a bit mean, i'll try again:Eraser wrote:It's not about materialistic goods, it's about ideas.
Thing is, in today's world, the general populace of the countries where denying the holocaust is illegal know what happened and have very sensible views on it. They also won't be swayed into hateful or antisemitic thoughts by people claimed the holocaust isn't real. Allowing people to deny the holocaust won't have the slightest impact on the way we in general view the events of the second world war. Sure, there are extreme views like neo-nazi groups, but they will hold on to their views whether or not holocaust denial is outlawed. So the net result of banning the denial of the holocaust is pretty much nil.
Also, to me such a ban only feeds the allegations of the holocaust never happening, because, if it did happen, then such a ban wouldn't be necessary, would it?
That's a different discussion... i meant elegance in the sense that no specific subject (the holocaust) is mentioned, as that would interfere with freedom of expression.Eraser wrote:Not really elegant, because there's no strict definition of what hateful is.
Nah, you're being paradoxical now. In your other post you claim how the constitution is elegant because no specifics are mentioned in one article, yet now you sweep a broad generalization like discrimination on the same pile as a very specific thing: denying the holocaust.Ryoki wrote:Aye comparing it to car theft was a bit mean, i'll try again:
By that logic we shouldn't have laws against discrimination; not being allowed to discriminate doesn't stop people from doing so either. After all, generally the majority of the Euro population doesn't discriminate and the extremists who still cling to that train of thought will be hard to convince otherwise, so the net result of anti discrimination laws is nil.
Better eh?
No no, it's not the constitution i find elegant, it's the way the law works regarding holocaust denial. Offenders are prosecuted under the law that forbids discrimination, so that the debate about what should be more important, article 7 or article 1, is avoided entirely. There is no law that explicitly forbids holocaust denial, which i think is rather clever because jesus, think of all the taxeuro's wasted on endless cunstitutional debates you'd get in one of these courtcases otherwise.Eraser wrote:Nah, you're being paradoxical now. In your other post you claim how the constitution is elegant because no specifics are mentioned in one article, yet now you sweep a broad generalization like discrimination on the same pile as a very specific thing: denying the holocaust.
The difference is that discrimination is a thing. A real, often tangible thing. It's about equal treatment and equal rights for people, no matter what personal background. Today, (in societies where it matters) denying the holocaust is such an absurd stance on history that society in general won't take you seriously if you spew that idea. So since the idea of the holocaust being a real and serious thing is so deeply ingrained in our society, I think a law to enforce that is no longer necessary.
As for the subject of hate mongering: denying the holocaust in itself doesn't promote hatred towards any group of people. It's only when used as an argument to support your (antisemitic) hateful ideologies. Same as denying man landed on the Moon (Hi Geoff!) It makes you look like a harmless fool, unless you use that as an argument to kill all of them lying sonofabitch astronauts.
yep, that about the sums it up - though the article, like so many others, swallows the 'Islamophobia' concept whole and without questioning its meaning - as this article does, for exampleCaptain Mazda wrote:Speaking of jokes, France's "free speech" double-standard:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/13/fra ... -offender/But the ink does not always flow free in France, which leads the Western world in crackdowns on free speech. Holocaust denial is a crime, and denying the Armenian genocide nearly became one in 2012. French legal history is choked with cases of bloggers, celebrities, and ordinary folk being dragged through the courts on charges of defamation or hate speech. Worse still, when the ink does flow, it predictably steers clear of powerful sacred cows, while baiting and stifling the usual suspects. If the French don’t learn the lessons of the Paris attacks and fail to confront the free-speech double standards that divide the country today, blood — not ink — will continue to flow.
the fuck..? so you'd ban creationism if someone took a picture of evolution?Ferrao10 wrote:I would compare it to creationism if there'd be actual written or photographed proof of Darwin's theory.
that law won't stop shit. also, you guys in Deutschland need to stop living in the past. you fret about inflation and Holocaust denial like it's the 1920s, but those days are long goneAnyway, the law is there in it's form to prevent people who deny from ever becoming a ruling party. And for that reason it is legit and "good to have", in my opinion.
Fucking weirdo...Ferrao10 wrote:As a born german citizen speaking for jurisdiction in Germany I think the law against denial of the holocaust is absolutely legit.
There is enough evidence (written documents by the Wehrmacht, films done by the Allies, etc.) to proof the KZs did exist and they were installed to systematically erase the Reich of it's non-wanted citizens/inhabitants.
I would compare it to creationism if there'd be actual written or photographed proof of Darwin's theory.
Anyway, the law is there in it's form to prevent people who deny from ever becoming a ruling party. And for that reason it is legit and "good to have", in my opinion.
Yeah, that makes total sense if you combine it with what Feedback just said. Nobody says "Hey, I've got no agenda at all, but I believe in the 7 day theory of creation...", just like nobody says "I don't believe in the Holocaust, but as it happens, I find the Jewish race to be thoroughly agreeable".seremtan wrote:
the fuck..? so you'd ban creationism if someone took a picture of evolution?
