RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years

RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:13:57 PM)
quote: Well, in your opinion, what constitutes whipping a crowd into a frenzy? Also, would you say the Danish cartoons are intended to incite violence? No I do not think the Danish cartoons were inciting violence. I thought they were distasteful. If there had been a depiction of some Catholic religious saint that was just as vulgar I do not think it would have made the news. I think of this as an example of inciting violence: A guy goes into a conference and says that Jews control everything, and that everything that people lack is because Jews are screwing them. They paint Jews as nefarious theives. They go further in stating that anyone who would attack Jewish people for these perceived flaws is blessed. They go on to talk about how to go about committing crimes against Jewish people. They advocate the burning of synagogues, they tell people that they should do this immediately! THIS is inciting violence. It is the reason why we have hate speech laws. As long as no one encourages another to commit a crime against people, how can they be inciting violence? Are all racist and prejudiced views inciting violence? Does it matter what religion or ethnicity is targetted? In this country the Anti-Deflamation League will randomly take on people for speaking out against Israel. I am an academic, once I get my post secondary degree i could be targetted for such a lawsuit against me because I do not like Israeli governmental policies, even though I have huge respect for Jewish people and their contributions. We can take things too far, don't ya think? Where does the line get drawn? I think it needs to be drawn where a direct link can be established between one person's speech and another's action. I think that the there has to be a prescribed course of action as direct consequences of the speech. I err on the side of being able to say whatever I like, and I have a deep abiding love for cultural diversity in all of its forms. I will also say that I have a love for debate and discourse and an abiding faith that the more freedom we have to say what we think, the less there will be racism and hatred for our fellow human being... but I am a sucker for being an idealist at times.

dcnovice -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:19:02 PM)
quote: It is very easy to say everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech, but you need to think about the potential consequences - e.g. Hitler etc. That's a good point, NG, and I think few of us could have resisted the temptation to shut Hitler up if we had the chance. The trouble is, how do you craft a law that silences just the Hitlers and the KKK folk? Who gets to decide what speech is hateful, and what yardstick should they use? Is it hateful speech, for instance, for a preacher to condemn homosexuality? For a black to make a negative generalization about whites? I don't know.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania No I do not think the Danish cartoons were inciting violence. I thought they were distasteful. If there had been a depiction of some Catholic religious saint that was just as vulgar I do not think it would have made the news. As long as no one encourages another to commit a crime against people, how can they be inciting violence? Are all racist and prejudiced views inciting violence? Does it matter what religion or ethnicity is targetted? Julia, this was my point around the complexities of inciting violence. It is open to debate. In my opinion, the cartoons were intended to incite violence. The aim of the cartoons was to present Islam as inevitably leading to terrorism. These cartoons were published by right-wing newspapers (Die Welt, Le Soir and The Jutland Post), all with a right-wing agenda. They knew the reaction that would come from certain sections of the Muslims world - we all know that a significant amount of Muslims are uneducated peasants who are ripe to be whipped up by rabble rousers - there was only ever going to be one reaction/conclusion. The objective was to begin a cycle of events which would sway the undecided Europeans who edge towards tolerance, but can be swayed by a reaction i.e. the objective was to increase Islamophobia in Europe. Once Islampohobia is rampant, you're into the realms of serious discrimination (as per the European Jews who were victims of this type of rabble rousing for centuries). There is a consequence associated with speech and action which always needs to be considered. Sometimes maintaining civil liberties at all costs isn't worth the consequences. A view on the lynchings and hangings of black Americans and the entitlement of the KKK to freedom of speech would be interesting. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania In this country the Anti-Deflamation League will randomly take on people for speaking out against Israel. I am an academic, once I get my post secondary degree i could be targetted for such a lawsuit against me because I do not like Israeli governmental policies, even though I have huge respect for Jewish people and their contributions. We can take things too far, don't ya think? I agree entirely. There is a distinct line between criticism of government policy and deliberately starting a chain of events intended to increase racism and intolerance.

dcnovice -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:35:18 PM)
quote: The aim of the cartoons was to present Islam as inevitably leading to terrorism. These cartoons were published by right-wing newspapers (Die Welt, Le Soir and The Jutland Post), all with a right-wing agenda. They knew the reaction that would come from certain sections of the Muslims world - we all know that a significant amount of Muslims are uneducated peasants who are ripe to be whipped up by rabble rousers - there was only ever going to be one reaction/conclusion. The objective was to begin a cycle of events which would sway the undecided Europeans who edge towards tolerance, but can be swayed by a reaction i.e. the objective was to increase Islamophobia in Europe. Interesting. That's a part of the story I hadn't heard. Not sure if that's because it didn't get covered on this side of the pond or because my grasp on the news leaves something to be desired.

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:40:34 PM)
Salmund Rushdie Wrote The Satanic Verses, and had a contract put on him. Was he inciting violence? So do the people that are willing to be violent to hush free speech win because they do not like a cartoon? So now we all have to watch what we say because we might piss someone off and they will be incited to be violent? I used to hate it when this phrase was brought up, but sometimes no other will do, there is something called personal responsibility in this world. I believe that people who get so upset over someone else's writings or cartoons that they seek to harm them for it need to be responsible for that. The world cannot stop being what it is to cater to the few when it comes to personal freedoms. Now I am not a champion of any right wing agenda, but it is precisely that I would fight to protect speech I do not agree with that means I truly am a champion of free speech. It is easy to condemn that which you disagree with... I just will not do that. I think that in the case of stomping on free speech, Muslims need to come to respect it... just like we need to respect humanitarian law and sovereignty. I am not saying we are perfect and Muslims are bad... but we cannot let anyone dictate what we can say by threat... can't you see that?

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:42:11 PM)
I think driving the KKK underground in the USA would have been a disaster. It is far better for groups like that to be exposed for what they are. Debate them in open. Ban thier covering thier faces in public. If belonging to the KKK or espousing views in line with the KKK was a crime, a lot of people would have been radicalized. Innocent people would get punished causing a backlash. It would drive a whole level of Conspiricy nonsense. And it would give the KKK credibility. Perhaps one of our europeon posters can verify this....It seems I have been reading for years that Neo Nazi activity in Europe( in general) and Germany( in paticular) is on the rise. Banning the speech has not seemed to eliminate it. I think a law like this is counter productive.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice That's a good point, NG, and I think few of us could have resisted the temptation to shut Hitler up if we had the chance. The trouble is, how do you craft a law that silences just the Hitlers and the KKK folk? Who gets to decide what speech is hateful, and what yardstick should they use? Is it hateful speech, for instance, for a preacher to condemn homosexuality? For a black to make a negative generalization about whites? I don't know. I'm in full agreement. The practicalties of designing a law to maintain order and well being in society is for better men/women than me - it's far from easy. There are two separate issues however: 1) The question of should freedom of speech be afforded to everyone regardless of the consequences? 2) The practicalities of designing and maintaining a law which doesn't impede the civil liberties of the people who exercise their civil liberties while maintaining respect for others. In terms of point 1, there is a line to drawn. Where that line is drawn is open to debate. In terms of point 2, this is why we live in a democracy with an elected, law-making government. In terms of condemning homosexuality or any discrimination, no it should not be banned. The problem begins when the intolerance is being spouted by a powerful group with an agenda. The reason being, words cross the line into widespread action.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania can't you see that? Life is not as simplisitic and black and white. Not everyone is capable of taking personal responsibility and we are not all rational human beings. Those pushing an extreme right-wing agenda are not rational human beings and neither are the uneducated rabble in certain sections of the Muslim world who respond to the provocation. This is life. No amount of saying take personal responsibility will change this. Thus, we're left with the reality and practicalties. There are two options - either you stand back, say get your act together and watch the whole, sorry episode unfold or you attempt to see the potential outcome and aim to prevent it. Sometimes you have to nip an issue in the bud and you have to have the bollocks to get stuck in, spot a problem in advance and pre-empt it. There are two good practical examples. If you would have stepped in to prevent the discrimination against black Americans or European Jews, where would you have stepped in?

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 12:06:11 AM)
quote: Life is not as simplisitic and black and white. Not everyone is capable of taking personal responsibility and we are not all rational human beings I never said that it was black or white.. in fact I pointed out how violence can be incited. Also we cannot put the onus on others to be responsible for our personal behavior. In other words I do not have the right to punch someone because he calls me a bad name, if I lost control over myself because of a mental deficiency it still does not make it acceptable to hit people for name calling. quote: Those pushing an extreme right-wing agenda are not rational human beings and neither are the uneducated rabble in certain sections of the Muslim world who respond to the provocation. This is life. No amount of saying take personal responsibility will change this. Thus, we're left with the reality and practicalties. So now we are only free to speak if we are rational? I mean where do I pass this rational test that guarantees me my freedom, which culturally speaking I believe this freedom is inherent... in other words I was created with freedom of speech, no one can take that from me. I have the right to believe in that just as Muslims have a right to not believe in it.. but they have no right to dictate what I say! What you are saying is that if you are right wing then you are less free than someone left wing? How does this work? Rushie having a contract put on him is bad, but being violent over a cartoon is ok? So who determines which is art and which is not? You because of your superior reasoning and left wingness? Do you see the problem with this? Lets say it makes me violently mad that everyone else in the world calls soccer football, because it is not football[:D]. Does this give me the right to kick someone's ass for calling soccer football? I mean if I am just an angry person and someone flips me the bird, does not justify hitting them with my car? They "made" me mad.. they "incited" me. It makes no sense to me. Telling me I am not free to speak is like telling a Muslim that Allah smokes crack and Mohammad was a pimp.

Royalton -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 12:12:45 AM)
In Germany is against the law to deny the Holocaust.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 12:15:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You because of your superior reasoning and left wingness? Do you see the problem with this? This is twice you've insinuated I can't see what you can, which is drawing an early conclusion to an ongoing discussion. I would strongly advise against drawing a conclusion half-way through a discussion. Let's take a practical example - do you think the Nazis were entitled to their freedom of speech which ended in genocide and the deaths of millions of people?

UtopianRanger -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 1:18:19 AM)
quote: I was just about to type a reply around the fact that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1924 and various other things........then, I read the part I've highlighted in bold and realised it would be one, big waste of valuable time. In future, do yourself a favour eh, save yourself the time and energy of replying to me as you won't be getting one back. Although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet, this has been a real good one. And I'm amazed by the consensus. After seeing who has posted, I must admit I expected something a tad bit different. I'd also say that even though you and luckydog operate from different points of the spectrum, I've personally enjoyed reading the passionate/articulate posts from both of you. I think it would be a shame to see each of you non-responsive to the others opinions/posts. JMHO - R

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 1:25:11 AM)
When someone says something along the lines of "you only want to silence people who disagree with you", experience tells me further discussion will be a waste of time. They've moved away from discussing ideas and into the realms of personal accusations. The same with "can't you see?". From where I'm standing, have the full discussion, draw a line under it and form a conclusion.

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 2:05:04 AM)
"There are two options - either you stand back, say get your act together and watch the whole, sorry episode unfold or you attempt to see the potential outcome and aim to prevent it. Sometimes you have to nip an issue in the bud and you have to have the bollocks to get stuck in, spot a problem in advance and pre-empt it. " Interestingly, that is one of the main arguments used by Bush to justify the Invasion of Iraq. Like I noted, and Julia probed and confirmed, it is based on your personal preferences.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 2:19:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent When someone says something along the lines of "you only want to silence people who disagree with you", experience tells me further discussion will be a waste of time. They've moved away from discussing ideas and into the realms of personal accusations. The same with "can't you see?". From where I'm standing, have the full discussion, draw a line under it and form a conclusion. Gent..... No doubt it was a little abrasive....but my post is coming from the vantage point that I think it's great to see folks debate from such diametrically opposed view points. I understand where it is you are coming from though. Thompsonx has mentioned in the past that he isn't here for the ''debate'', but the ''discussion'', instead - I am here for both ; } - R

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 2:29:20 AM)
deleted

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 2:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent When someone says something along the lines of "you only want to silence people who disagree with you", experience tells me further discussion will be a waste of time. They've moved away from discussing ideas and into the realms of personal accusations. The same with "can't you see?". From where I'm standing, have the full discussion, draw a line under it and form a conclusion. Gent..... No doubt it was a little abrasive....but my post is coming from the vantage point that I think it's great to see folks debate from such diametrically opposed view points. I understand where it is you are coming from though. Thompsonx has mentioned in the past that he isn't here for the ''debate'', but the ''discussion'', instead - I am here for both ; } - R UR, I appreciate your point of view, but abrasive isn't the issue for me. I don't give a shit if someone delivers something arrogantly, abrasive or whatever, after all arrogance is subjective, but what I do care about is that an idea/concept is being discussed. When it moves into the personal, I switch off. I'm an ideas person, once it moves away from that I think "fuck that, not for me". Plus, I'm too long in the tooth to take on board "you xxxxx".

meatcleaver -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 2:52:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I think driving the KKK underground in the USA would have been a disaster. It is far better for groups like that to be exposed for what they are. Debate them in open. Ban thier covering thier faces in public. If belonging to the KKK or espousing views in line with the KKK was a crime, a lot of people would have been radicalized. Innocent people would get punished causing a backlash. It would drive a whole level of Conspiricy nonsense. And it would give the KKK credibility. Perhaps one of our europeon posters can verify this....It seems I have been reading for years that Neo Nazi activity in Europe( in general) and Germany( in paticular) is on the rise. Banning the speech has not seemed to eliminate it. I think a law like this is counter productive. Never thought I would agree with Luckydog but banning hate organisations is the last thing we need. It is much better to keep them on the table where they can be seen listened to and countered. Idiots love conspiracies and secret organisations and they become very romantic and places of belonging to alienated people. There is a residual of neo-Nazis that won't go away but they aren't a coherent group. The extreme right wing in most countries exist for entirely different reasons. Le Penn in France attracted a lot of support for very specific reasons and it was mainly a protest vote because other parties were divided and a quirk of the French electoral system, his support appeared to be much much higher than it actually is. The Belgian Flanders party wouldn't have the support it had if half of the country didn't speak French, it is the 50/50 Flemish/Walloonian make up of the country that creates the situation where the right flourishs because each side are worried about the other dominating. The problem will become a real problem if parties are banned because they will attract all sorts of misfits for all sorts of reasons and those in charge will be able to manipulate them. As Europe stands now, each country polices each other. If France by some freak voted in a rightwing party, it would be isolated and sanctioned. The Austrians who voted in a rightwing party had to retreat on just about all their policies or be sanctioned and quarantined in the EU. The Austrians voted in a right wing government because they were worried by the flood of migrants from eastern Europe. Well they are all members of the EU now so Austrian paranoia has faded.

WyrdRich -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 7:52:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It is very easy to say everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech, but you need to think about the potential consequences - e.g. Hitler etc. I'm not for one minute saying one lone idiot should be silenced, but there comes a point where a powerful lobby is a serious threat to the interests of wider society and you need to weigh up civil liberties against the interests of wider society. It's not always black and white. Replace Hitler with Marx, in your example, North. It would be pretty easy to make a case that more people have died as a result of attempts to implement his ideas, or by totalitarian types claiming that, than the Nazis ever killed. Are you still so eager to weigh Free Speech against the interest of wider society?

mnottertail -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/17/2007 7:55:23 AM)
Why is someone going to jail for a woven fabric? TailorMadeDom

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125