“And if this accusation were true, what would it say about me…?”
Either that you are sympathetic with the Nazis or that you don’t understand how dangerous holocause denial or Neo-Nazis are. My guess is that Robert thinks the latter.
@Colin
Sorry, but I reject the basic contention that this is some kind of pet topic that I am “continually and repeatedly” going on about.
The idea that I am merely too stupid to ‘get’ that nazis are bad people, or that I am somehow ignorant of the facts, isn’t terribly nice and is incorrect - but I don’t actually have any problem with that.
Not understanding how dangerous holocause denial or Neo-Nazis are is very different from not getting that Nazis are bad people and doesn’t require you to be stupid.
Speech is a great aid in understanding anyone
@Colin: “…Not understanding how dangerous holocause denial or Neo-Nazis…”
One should take care not to conflate two separate things here. I think one could make an argument that Neo-Nazis are dangerous - at least inasmuch as they advocate or incite violent or criminal acts.
Whether Holocaust denial (i.e. the basic act of denying that all or some of the Holocaust took place) represents an existential threat to democratic society is very much a matter of debate.
There is an argument that this kind of thing is actually more dangerous if it is pushed underground rather than being openly faced down with facts and robust debate - which is what happens in America.
EDIT for clarity.
What two things have I conflated? I used the word ‘or’ to show that these are to be taken separately and all I am arguing here is that what Robert has written does not imply the things you think it implies. In the sentence you partially quoted, I said nothing about the dangers of neo-Nazis or the dangers of holocaust denial. All I said is that underestimating these dangers, if they exist or not, is not the same as not recognising that Nazis are bad people.
“There is an argument that this kind of thing is actually more dangerous if pushed underground rather than being openly faced down with facts and robust debate - which is what happens in America.”
I totally agree with that. The fact that holocaust denialism is a crime makes the “The jews made saying that illegal, because they don´t want you to know the truth”-narrative that holocaust deniers like to use in private seem (more) plausible to some people.
By the way, are there any laws against vaccine denialism, faith healing and whatnot too? These “opinions” are killing people everyday.
@Colin
If I didn’t know you so well (from your other posts over the last 6 months) I would be sorely tempted to think that you are trying to troll this thread.
Either way, I am done with this.
It is unlikely that I’ll be posting in the forum again for a while.
“Colin, if I didn’t know you so well (from your other posts over the last 6 months) I would be sorely tempted to think that you are trying to troll this thread.”
I don’t know why you would think that. Anyway, I look forward to your return.
ad Jay: I stand by every word I said/wrote.
I am also convinced that you know me well enough (based on the many discussions we have had so far on this and other topics) to understand that I don’t think that you are a nazi. You have never given me any reason to think so.
However, I believe that you are very lenient with them. That is my impression and it is based on the way I interpret what you have written in this and other threads.
(…) Sorry, but I reject the basic contention that this is some kind of pet topic that I am “continually and repeatedly” going on about. (…)
Whenever we only slightly touch upon the topic of free speech, you come up with people denying the holocaust and how terribly they are treated in Austria. You even once said something along the lines of Austria still being in the dark ages because of our Verbotsgesetz.
(…) …isn’t terribly nice and is incorrect (…)
You are not stupid, I have never suggested that. Yes, I think you are extremely naive when it comes to nazis. How is saying that “not terribly nice”?
It is a hell lot nicer than the things people handing out those “innocuous” leaflets say and you don’t really seem to be that shocked about them.
I guess this is because you think it is “just words”, “they are not causing any harm”, “they are just exercising their right to free speech” etc. - I think there is no right to incite to violence and YES, at the end of the day every single nazi is doing exactly that.
If my statement on your alleged naivety is correct or not will always remain a subject of contention between the two of us and something that will be judged differently by different people. Calling someone naive certainly does not qualify as an insult in my opinion, however.
(…) …But again: where is the evidence that I am “continually and repeatedly downplaying” Holocaust denial and/or Neo-Nazis?
And if this accusation were true, what would it say about me…?
(…)
I remember you saying in another thread that when you were in Germany you met some guys who were making those infamous “Jewish jokes” and you still thought they were “kinda nice”. You never ever suggested you sided with them or their mentality (and I NEVER suggested that), but I don’t think there is something like a “joke” when we talk about the holocaust.
I don’t share that kind of humour.
And, yes, every time we speak about free speech you come up with holocaust deniers. If you portray the nazi supporters handing out leaflets (as you did in one of your previous posts) as people that in the US for example would simply be laughed at or ignored you are clearly, albeit ever so subtly, suggesting that what the nazis are doing is not really that big a thing. If Americans can just ignore them or laugh at them, why do those “silly” Austrians have to make such a fuss about it?
It is only stupid leaflets, after all …- and this to me tantamounts to downplaying their actions, eventually resulting in downplaying the horrendous dimension of the holocaust since this is the very core of any kind of revisionism.
That’s what I think and that’s the impression I got. I won’t apologize for it and as long as people keep portraying those nazis as simply “stupid” or, as their advocates often try to portray them in Austria, mere “Lausbuben”, I will argue that this is indeed much more of a smear than anything I have said or written here.
(…) …Should they be able to deny the fact of the Holocaust? Yes, I think they should. (…)
I asked you repeatedly to read our Verbotsgesetz - it is available online. Please, google it. You keep saying stuff which is not true.
Sick people can deny the holocaust (yes, you have to be seriously sick to deny it) as much as they want in their homes. The Verbotsgesetz punishes “Wiederbetätigung”. Even if I wrote here that I don’t believe that the holocaust actually happened, NOTHING will happen to me.
What our law says is that you are not allowed to go out there, hold speeches, trying to form neo-nazi groups, inciting to violence etc.
NEVER EVER has anybody been punished in Austria for saying: I don’t believe the holocaust actually happened.
This is just what those trying to get rid of that law want to make people believe. If, however, you use this “opinion” as a means to spread the nazi ideology, then yes, you will be punished and I am very glad that is the case.
Don’t only read the law but also read up on the related court cases.
(…) …Unfortunately there are all too many people who will reach for a cheap smear rather than arguing the point. (…)
Me taking the time to respond to your comments has never been a cheap smear. I would not waste a second of my time on you or your remarks if I were the kind of person you are trying to depict me as with this comment. I was trying to make a point. I have failed to do so in your eyes and I accept this fact. This does not change my point of view in any way, however.
sgilpin80 was saying that he did not think that Austrians were that different when it comes to how we view freedom of speech. And then you came in, trying to depict Austria as if it were a place where people have to fear for their freedom when doing things that people in the US (according to your opinion) would simply laugh at or ignore.
I responded that I don’t agree in the least with your point of view. That was neither cheap nor a smear. I don’t have to agree with you and nor is there any reason for you to agree with me if you consider things to be different.
ad Paule: (…) …So you´re basically saying, that freedom of speech does not include denying the holocaust because holocaust deniers are evil? (…)
No, I am not. You can read up on my other postings on the same subject and I don’t think this is what I said here either.
Holocaust deniers are not just evil, they are criminals. Have you ever met a “benign” holocaust denier who was spreading his “theories” just out of his interest in history?!!
There is ALWAYS a reason why they do that. And, yes, I think people like David Irving have just as much blood on their hands as those f.cking cowards who smashed that little boy’s head as described in the article I linked to. Just because Irving wears a suit and is protected by lenient laws in other countries, this does not make him less a criminal in my eyes.
He is too clever to publicly say “go out there and get them”. I’m sure you have seen German, Austrian etc. nazis in videos praising his books. There are always different groups of nazis - the way they act is different, but the goal is always the same.
Just as much as I think that our democracies need to fight religious fanatic groups, such as the salafists, trying to undermine our society, I am convinced that we need to fight nazis WHEREEVER, WHENEVER and HOWEVER we can.
You have different laws in Germany. Personally, I am very happy that I don’t have to watch thousands of those b.stards marching with their flags and shouting nazi slogans in our cities, sullying the memories of those who were slaughtered by people they praise.
I don’t want to fund a party like the NDP with my tax money. If the Germans want to do that, that is their business. I am glad we don’t have to.
It is not just about laws, it is about the stand a society takes. I think it is shameful that the democratic forces of a state leave the “fight” up to the individual citizens who more often than not are left alone. I can’t verify the accuracy of reports published in the Spiegel, Stern, Die Welt, the FZZ because I don’t live there but I am sure you have read reports about “ausländerfreie Zonen” established by neo-nazis especially in eastern Germany. Police officers saying in interviews they don’t go there anymore, leaving a few locals alone in their fight against those nazis who seem to be quite free in establishing their little “Reich” terrorizing people who are supposed to be protected by the state.
I do believe that part of this is due to the fact that your laws are not sufficient to stop their activities before they get a foothold in the communities.
Germany has done a much better job than Austria with regard to the “Entnazifizierung”. You have also been much more consistent when it came to publicly assuming responsibility for your past. Austria’s role has been rather shameful in this respect up to a few years ago.
Still I think we have better legislative means to fight these people. You may not stop hardcore nazis with these laws unless you actually jail them and keep them there, but you can prevent youngsters from falling into the traps of those criminals by making it clear that there will be consequences if they do certain things. Education is another means to fight these people, but I don’t think it is enough.
Again, never ever has someone been jailed in Austria simply for saying the holocaust did not exist. You ALWAYS have to prove that there is a propagandistic element in what you say and that you are not only condoning those crimes but also trying to re-establish a nazi system.
People like David Irving are not simply “historians”, they are the suit-wearing stooges of the new nazi rank and file.
I’ll leave it at that. I can’t explain my standpoint any better. I accept the fact that people disagree and I don’t have any problem with that.
P.S. Jay, I never attacked you personally and I would not do so, unless I felt you gave me a good reason for it. You disagreeing with me on this topic, certainly is no reason for me to not talk to you anymore.
Paule makes a good point. There are many people saying many things that we have very good reason to think are very dangerous. In the Anglosphere, there is a powerful industry of professional obscurantists who can be hired to cast doubt on inconvienient scientific research. This industry was originally developed largely by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer, and then when that became untenable, on the link between second-hand smoking and lung cancer. The same industry, and often the exact same scientists, is now busy casting doubt on the link between man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses and global warming. Do the people who want to see holocause deniers thrown in prison also want to see these people thrown in prison?
(By the way, a great book on this industry is David Michaels’ book ‘Doubt is their Product’)
@ lovelanguagesIII (who happens to be called Robert for anybody reading this who doesn’t know that)
“and this to me tantamounts to downplaying their actions, eventually resulting in downplaying the horrendous dimension of the holocaust since this is the very core of any kind of revisionism.”
Am I understanding you here? Are you arguming that downplaying the dangers of modern day neo-Nazis and downplaying the dangers of holocause denial is essentially the same as downplaying how terrible the holocause was?
ad Colin: (…) …Do the people who want to see holocause deniers thrown in prison also want to see these people thrown in prison? (…)
Sorry, if you and Paul and anybody else don’t see the difference here, I don’t think there is any sense in trying to continue this conversation. In German we say, you can actually “ein Thema zerreden”, I think this is what we are doing here. We are going in circles. I accept the fact that you disagree with me. I have said everything I had to say on this topic. I am unable to express myself better than I did.
(…) …Am I understanding you here? Are you arguming that downplaying the dangers of modern day neo-Nazis and downplaying the dangers of holocause denial is essentially the same as downplaying how terrible the holocause was? (…)
Maybe my English sentence was not clear enough, I’m sorry for that.
What I meant is not that if you, as a person, are downplaying the actions of neo-nazis you are automatically downplaying the dimension of the holocaust. What I was trying to say is that in underestimating the danger posed by nazis and in treating their propaganda as something “not that serious or not that dangerous” you will eventually pave the way for others to publicly and institutionally sully (read “downplay the holocaust”) the memories of all those who were slaughtered.
As I said, I can’t explain myself any better. Maybe I did a poor job in trying to do so. I stand by what I said, however.
As for the theory referred to by Paul (and, I think, also supported by Jay) that nazis will grow even stronger in the underground than if they are allowed to appear and act in public, I guess that is the approach taken, amongst others, by the German governments over the past few decades. Personally, I think our approach has been much more successful.
I don’t allow people to sell drugs in the streets either, just because I fear if I put a ban on it they would go underground and pose a bigger threat.
We’ll just have to agree that we disagree.
If me wanting people, like the ones described in the article I mentioned, to be punished, amongst other things for smashing a lil boy’s head and making him almost lose one of his eyes, while chanting nazi slogans, makes me a “return hater” that is almost worse than the original hater, I gladly assume that position.
(…)…they are engaging in hateful activity. (…)
Beating people to death etc. or praising those who did is not just “hateful activity” to me.
(…)…Instead of viewing this person (or group of people) as fellow human-beings who unfortunately veered off the track and are in need of our love and support, we instead choose to hate and oppose these people in return. (…)
The “policy of appeasement” didn’t work with the nazis when Chamberlain tried it, it won’t work now either. You can’t just chit-chat with people who wish to break your scull.
Any leeway you give to those committing crimes is at the expense of their victims.
(…) …And somehow we get a “free pass” for this hatred. After all, they hated first. And I am only hating them because they are hateful people (…)
I am curious to know what your feelings are when you think of their crimes, I honestly am.
Shock, sympathy, …obviously it is not hatred.
If you were to go to Auschwitz or Buchenwald, do you think you would feel that the people (whoever those people are supposed to be) should have talked to the “misguided” nazis telling them how wrong it was for them to gas people?
I wish I had never gone there…my mistake…I’ll never forget those pictures for the rest of my life.
ad kimojima: (…) Where I come from, people who are sick or who are ignorant are not “bad” or deserving of hatred in return – they are people who need to be educated and they are people who need to receive help.(…)
Where is that? It is not the US, I guess, because as far as I know even people who are actually diagnosed with a psychiatric illness are executed if they committed murder for example.
(…) I will pray for the victims to forgive and to heal AS WELL as pray for the misguided people to come to their senses, seek forgiveness, and find peace. (…)
Fair enough. I wish you a lot of power and I wish, as a non-believer, that your prayers will be heard and of help to those in need (I really mean it, I’m not being sarcastic here). I am sure there was lots of praying in the concentration camps.
EDIT: (…) It is not a “bastard” or a piece of dung who is going to rot in jail for the rest of their life. It is a person. A person who is in jail. (…)
If you really manage to live up to this standard, hats off to you. I admit I can’t be as forgiving. And for people to be forgiven, they need to repent first.
So the thing with going to jail if you deny the Holocaust is true ? I think denying the existence of God is a billion times worse.
I remember a crazy pastor that wanted to burn the Qu’ran and I bet that no charges were pressed against him( the power of freedom of speech -go figure ).I also want to add here that I’m against Nazis for some good reasons : they said that Arabs are worth less than toads, they thought of themselves as superior to all races etc…
If freedom of speech really existed you couldn’t convict someone of denying anything .
I believe we should come up with a universal definition of what freedom of speech is ( though this may prove impossible in a world dominated by laws created by people that don’t believe in a ‘higher’ objective authority ).
To my mind freedom of speech means the act of expressing one’s opinions,ideals without insulting anyone based on their nationality,race,religion,social status or gender. Even if you don’t agree with something you shouldn’t engage in hate talks because you will never prove anything by doing so ( you’ll achieve the opposite in fact ).
“So the thing with going to jail if you deny the Holocaust is true ? I think denying the existence of God is a billion times worse.”
Why?
“I remember a crazy pastor that wanted to burn the Qu’ran and I bet that no charges were pressed against him”
I think burning a copy of the Quran (or is it Koran? I can never remember) is stupid, both because it is basically a pointless insult to muslims and because it can lead to violence. However, the only reason it leads to violence is because many muslims are willing to commit violent acts for something so insignificant as the burning of a book. Whether or not somebody who burns a Quran should be held responsible, at least partly, for the violence that follows is for me a difficult question. On the one hand, they are not the ones commiting the violence, but on the other hand, they burn the Quran knowing how many muslims will react.
ad MADARA: (…) …So the thing with going to jail if you deny the Holocaust is true ? (…)
It depends on the country and on what you actually say or do.
Several countries have legal provisions under which the denial of the holocaust is subject to criminal prosecution (amongst others, Germany and Austria).
That’s the legal situation in Austria: (…)
National Socialism Prohibition Law (1947, amendments of 1992)
§ 3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years' imprisonment.[15]
§ 3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.[16]
“Mere” denial of the holocaust will not get you into jail in Austria.
(…) …I think denying the existence of God is a billion times worse. (…)
The holocaust is a fact, God’s existence is not. If I deny his existence, I might go to “hell” according to believers, but I don’t see how I am going to harm anybody else by making more room for others in heaven.
@lovelanguages: well I’m not informed enough to know if those anti-denial laws have been effective in Europe. I just know that in the U.S. people who are Neo-Nazis or KKK are allowed to speak, but rather than have that speech help them, it only seems to hurt them. When they open their mouths people see them for the degenerates they are, and thus loose influence. Meanwhile if you make it illegal, then you lend power to the idea, because it almost seems like you have something to hide that you don’t want spoken.
That being said, I don’t know the situation in Europe, maybe those laws are helpful there, but they aren’t necessary here in the US which is what you originally asked about. For example, people are allowed to express anti-gay views and do, and regardless there is an accelerating general movement towards more acceptance of homosexuality in this country.
Are there other topics beside holocaust denial that are forbidden by law in Austria? I’m curious to know if you think there should be an expansion of these laws to other areas or if there is something unique about holocaust denial.
“I think denying the existence of God is a billion times worse.”
These are the kind of statements that make me fearful of religious belief system. They demand absolute protection from any criticism. Any intellectual challenge to their belief system is deemed an insult or blasphemy.
Let’s remember that the body of evidence in support of the existence of God is as solid as the one supporting the existence of Santa Claus or the Man In The Moon.