Canadian Press

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Petsy ]

Perhaps we can jail people for:

Not believing that Muslims blew up the twin towers because they were jealous of American freedoms.

Not recognizing the 'trickle down' effect.

Not believing Iraq had WMD.

There is a real danger in jailing people for having the wrong beliefs.

There are many, many things in history that are questioned. There are also many conspiracy nuts out there that question everything from the Pentagon crash, to the moon landing to the World Wars.

These people are lunatics and should be considered lunatics. But, to suggest that a person be jailed for having incorrect beliefs, is ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
some good news on a cold day in TO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:

Not believing in the holocaust and spreading that belief is not the same thing as advocating genocide - although it has certainly been succesfully marketed as such.

---

Zundel was condemned on 14 counts including incitement of racial hatred. I believe he should have been put in a cage, for the edification of German youth, and the key thrown away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
These people are lunatics and should be considered lunatics. But, to suggest that a person be jailed for having incorrect beliefs, is ridiculous.

Not believing in the holocaust and spreading that belief is not the same thing as advocating genocide - although it has certainly been succesfully marketed as such.

---

Perhaps that's why the very first story linked to says:

quote:

---

A German court sentenced a prominent Holocaust denier extradited from Canada to five years in prison on Thursday for inciting racial hatred and denying the Nazis killed six million Jews. [emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

Here is a man that did all he could to continue the misery for Holocaust survivors and spread anti-Semitism. That he was jailed by the country whose past regime was responsible for the Holocaust in the first place is fitting and ironic punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So you would agree people who lie about history and spread hate should be jailed? How would that impact the many Zionists who post here denying Palestinian history and who help perpetuate the on-going crimes against Palestinians and the promotion of hatred of Palestinians by labeling all of them terrorists (including our own mealy mouthed, racist Prime Minister)?

---

FM, while I agree with you, completely, about the crimes against the Palestinians and the shameless apologists for those crimes, there are enough threads about this which are open right now. Why not allow this one to be about Zundel and Holocaust denial, before it turns into another mudslinging match?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

FM, while I agree with you, completely, about the crimes against the Palestinians and the shameless apologists for those crimes, there are enough threads about this which are open right now. Why not allow this one to be about Zundel and Holocaust denial, before it turns into another mudslinging match?

In fact, do you have a comment on the Zundel news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:

Note that it's the inciting racial hatred part that comes first.

---

But wasn't the court's argument basically that denying the Holocaust IS inciting racial hatred? Basically that anyone who denies the Holocaust is automatically guilty of hatred? I'm not sure, but I don't believe he actualyl advocated violence against anyone.

No doubt they consider holocaust denial to be inciting racial hatred.

Regardless, the point is that he is being jailed for holocaust denial - for holding a belief and sharing it - however incorrect and misguided that belief might be.

quote:

---

do you have a comment on the Zundel news?

---

General Custer is regarded in American school books as a hero even though his mission was to undertake a massacre in land promised to a First Nations people.

quote:

---

Holocaust denial illegal

Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.

"It affects the agitator who claims the Jews prey on the German people, that they invented the Holocaust for that purpose, that foreigners should all be thrown out and that the discussion should finally be over with," Benz said. "He must be punished because he engages in incitement of the masses, because he slanders the memory of those murdered, because he slanders our fellow citizens."

Austria imposes even tougher penalties for such offences. Historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving, who was recently arrested there, faces up to 20 years in jail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

No, his point his legitimate, if not totally analogous. This thread is not solely about Zundel and Holocaust denial. It is about him being jailed for denying the Holocaust. That necessitates a discussion of whether it was right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
At no point in the articles did I see evidence that he encouraged violence or gencocide against a group.

---

quote:

---

Whether people agree with German law or not is not really relevant.

---

I don't see what relevancy has to do with anything. Unless you're saying that no one has the right to criticize the German law. Perhaps that would be the next law you would advocate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

I don't see what relevancy has to do with anything. Unless you're saying that no one has the right to criticize the German law. Perhaps that would be the next law you would advocate.

And since when is "German law" above reproach?

---

The German state, bureaucracy and armed forces, and a substantial section of its population, were the authors of and/or complicit in the worst war humanity has seen and the worst acts of genocide based on "superior" and "inferior" humans that humanity has ever seen.

For decades, German society was in denial, and neo-Nazi forces arose. Germany took a long time to come to terms with what it had done. Even the trial and punishment of the monstrous war criminals was left to an international tribunal.

Finally, as a result of a new generation of German youth demanding that their parents face up to history, take ownership, and prevent a recurrence, Germany began to take measures to recognize its aggressive and genocidal past - on the front of education and the law, among others.

One thing the German people chose to do was to ban any attempt to besmirch the millions of victims of German atrocities. Think of it as analogous to a law which says you can't tell lies about a single living individual. The maximum sentence set out for such a crime was 5 years' imprisonment.

I fully support this law in the context of Germany, where it is clearly needed, as well as some other countries which cravenly collaborated with Nazi aggression and occupation and deportation (or outright murder) of their own citizens.

If someone is afraid that such a law is a "precedent" for persecution of progressives, I challenge them to explain to me when and where progressives have not been persecuted, with or without laws serving as pretexts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

I don't see what relevancy has to do with anything. Unless you're saying that no one has the right to criticize the German law. Perhaps that would be the next law you would advocate.

And since when is "German law" above reproach?

---

No I never have said do not criticize German law. I have never commented on merits or problems with German law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

But if we are going to bring in North American or middle East examples to discuss then I would like to see their relevance to the law that was used to charge Zundel.

---

quote:

---

Think of it as analogous to a law which says you can't tell lies about a single living individual.

---

That's called defamation. And it is a civil, not a criminal, remedy. You could lose money as a result, but not your liberty. Unless you want to bring back criminal libel, which essentially this is.

What makes the sentence in this case even more disturbing is that Zundel did not make the remarks on German soil. Apparently, the prosecution was based on web postings. That raise a totally different issue, and opens up a whole new can of worms.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I wouldn't. They merit separate discussions on their own.

---

I agree Unionist.

I stand by my first comment. The verdict today brought good news on a cold day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

That's called defamation. And it is a civil, not a criminal, remedy. You could lose money as a result, but not your liberty. Unless you want to bring back criminal libel, which essentially this is.

---

You're not serious, are you? You don't know you can be imprisoned in Canada for defamatory libel, even if you believe it's true!?

quote:

---

Punishment of libel known to be false

300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 264.

Punishment for defamatory libel

301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.

---

The Criminal Code doesn't care whether the publication is in Canada or elsewhere.

Here's the definition of "publishing a libel" - its wording certainly does not exempt the internet:

quote:

---

299. A person publishes a libel when he

(a) exhibits it in public;

(b) causes it to be read or seen; or

(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.

---

Over to you, josh.

ETA: I see from your profile that you're a lawyer, so you would already be aware of the definition of defamatory libel, but perhaps other babblers will be pleased to note that it can be applied to the Holocaust as well:

quote:

---

298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

---

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
I'm well aware of Canada's hate speech laws. Fortunately, the U.S. (so far) has not gone down the road of adopting criminal libel laws. My point was not whether they exist, but whether they should exist.

---

You were talking about the laws of the United States? Oh well, I beg your pardon, I could have sworn you were talking about Canada, when you said "you could lose money as a result, but not your liberty".

Far be it from me to compare Canadian criminal law with the legal code of that bastion of free expression which is America.

So I gather you don't think Zundel should have been subject to any penalty at all (forget about the imprisonment part) for his actions?

ETA: Sorry, josh, I'm not talking about "Canada's hate speech laws". You are obviously confused. Click on the link I provided. Hate propaganda is a separate and distinct offence under the Criminal Code (of Canada):

quote:

---

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. etc.

---

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
No. And I take it you're in favor of criminal libel laws where you can be put in jail, as you put it, for "telling lies"?

---

I never said I favoured putting people in jail for "telling lies". That's kind of like a little lie that you just told, isn't it? And don't worry, I won't report you to the authorities.

What I said about "criminal libel laws" was to enlighten you to their existence in Canada, which you appear to have been unaware of. Indeed, you seem to have been unaware that Zundel could, under a not-too-abstruse construction of Canadian legislation, have been charged, tried, and convicted under the Criminal Code (of Canada) and had his hateful ass dumped into a prison cell in our own country, under our own laws, for exactly the same term (five years) that the Germans have wisely imposed!

From one of your earlier posts:

quote:

---

One thing the German people chose to do was to ban any attempt to besmirch the millions of victims of German atrocities. Think of it as analogous to a law which says you can't tell lies about a single living individual. The maximum sentence set out for such a crime was 5 years' imprisonment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
I think we can take some pride here in Canada for getting him to Germany. And here is the Canadian reaction.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Petsy ]

---

Those who applaud this episode really need to give their head a shake, and re-examine their commmittment to the cause of freedom. The Government has used the Zundel episode to set some very scary precedents.

People are so blinded by their hate for this tired old man that they didn't notice (or care) when the government deprecated habeas corpus.

This underscores one of the things I'm learning is characteristic of the activist left: A readiness to drop one's committment to justice in regards to one's perceived enemies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

So I gather you don't think Zundel should have been subject to any penalty at all (forget about the imprisonment part) for his actions?

---

quote:

---

Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

---

quote:

---

FM hasn't pronounced on that point, and I wish s/he would.

---

But I did. Here, I will even repeat it:

quote:

---

If we are going to jail liars we should jail all liars. I once heard Rush Limbaugh announce on television that it was the Puritans, who were capitalists, who fed the starving, socialist, natives, which gave rise to Thanksgiving Day. An obvious and outrageous historical revisionism. Yet, not only is the man neither reviled nor jailed, he remains a leading light of right wing conservatives however pathetic that might be.

General Custer is regarded in American school books as a hero even though his mission was to undertake a massacre in land promised to a First Nations people.

If we are to protect history, why not all of it?

---

quote:

---

The German state, bureaucracy and armed forces, and a substantial section of its population, were the authors of and/or complicit in the worst war humanity has seen and the worst acts of genocide based on "superior" and "inferior" humans that humanity has ever seen.

---

I would not minimize the horror of the holocaust, but wouldn't the well documented liquidation of first nations, the trail of tears of the Cherokee, for instance, be among the "worst acts of genocide based on "superior" and "inferior" humans that humanity has ever seen"?

And yet, there are no centres, memorials, or UN resolutions to mark the genocides committed against first nations either here, in Australia, Africa, Asia, or anywhere else where Europeans landed as a "superior race." And it is quite legal, in Canada, Germany, or elsewhere, to revise the history all you want.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

This underscores one of the things I'm learning is characteristic of the activist left: A readiness to drop one's committment to justice in regards to one's perceived enemies.

---

I don't think this is any more characteristic of the activist left than it is of the activist right or the activist centre.

Judging from the posts above, it seems opinion is pretty much evenly divided about whether holocaust denial should be a criminal offense. And mark me down as one of those who believe it should not.

The problem is that a precedent has been set.

It is now illegal to hold a particular belief in history and to share that view.

quote:

---

Today, if we want freedom and democracy to survive in this country, we must fight Islam and destroy it everywhere it has established roots, which means everywhere, period. It's not because we are good people and Muslims are bad people. Of course, they do a lot of things that we find disgusting and inhumane. But, believe it or not, we also do a lot of things they find disgusting and inhumane. That is not a reason to go to war. At least, not to us.

---

However he IS a German citizen, and this law IS a known law. He went up against it knowing it was a crime and lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
And if we has allowed him to speak his mind freely and openly, within about 8 minutes we would all discount him as a nutjob who can slink back into his dark hole from whence he came.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
In any case I find it highly doubtful that the intent of the law was to prevent people from bismirching the victims of the Holocaust. My impression was the law came into effect in order to have a legal tool for repressing National Socialism, includive of all it aspects, not just it antisemetism.

---

I agree. But why are you raising anti-Semitism? If someone puts up a website saying, "I hate Jews, they're arrogant SOBs, too smart for their own good, greedy and grasping, I prefer Italians, much better race of people", etc. - I know of no law which prohibits that nor do I propose any.

I repeat, why are you talking about anti-Semitism? The German law refers to the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated by Germany against the peoples of Europe and the world. Germany has banned denial of this truth as one method of healing, educating, and preventing. I support this effort 100%.

quote:

---

Yeah, like what happened with Hitler.

---

Hitler by himself was not the problem. His party could have been banned without sending him to jail for his views. Where, in any event, he did serve time, for all the good it did him and the world.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

What were his actions?

---

Do your research, then get back to this discussion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

Hitler by himself was not the problem. His party could have been banned without sending him to jail for his views. Where, in any event, he did serve time, for all the good it did him and the world.

---

It's very clear. You would have taken no action against Hitler either, before his accession as Chancellor. See, that's the difference between our legal system here in Canada and whichever one you purport to purvey. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees various individual freedoms, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Most of the civilized world (with the obvious exception, at so many levels, of the United States of America) has chosen to limit the rights of Nazis because of the hideous crimes they have committed against "free and democratic society".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:

Today it is some right wing nutjob. Tomorrow it could be Noam Chomsky.

---

Today it is child pornography photos. Tomorrow it could be my family's photo album.

Do you actually think in rote formulas, or only post that way?

I can't believe the sanctimonious declarations of allegiance to abstract "FREEDOM" on this thread - as if freedom of speech, freedom of the press, were absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It's very clear. You would have taken no action against Hitler either, before his accession as Chancellor. See, that's the difference between our legal system here in Canada and whichever one you purport to purvey. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees various individual freedoms, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Most of the civilized world (with the obvious exception, at so many levels, of the United States of America) has chosen to limit the rights of Nazis because of the hideous crimes they have committed against "free and democratic society".

---

A similar argument can be made regarding Communists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Is anyone familiar with how parole works in Germany or whether it has some law concerning older convicts (ie I believe some European countries won't keep someone in jail past the age of 70 - Zundel is 67).

Just wondering how much of this 5 year sentence he'll actually be serving.

---

quote:

---

I repeat, why are you talking about anti-Semitism? The German law refers to the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated by Germany against the peoples of Europe and the world. Germany has banned denial of this truth as one method of healing, educating, and preventing. I support this effort 100%.

Why are you talking about anti-Semitism? This isn't about Jews.

---

quote:

---

In the framework of its German Forced Labour Compensation Programme (GFLCP), IOM received 329,000 claims for Slave and Forced Labour, 32,000 claims for Property Loss and 41,000 claims for Personal Injury. As of January 2004, IOM had resolved 80% of all Slave and Forced Labour claims and had recommended 77,500 claims for payment. The Organization had also resolved all Personal Injury claims and 40% of the Property Loss claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yeah, like what happened with Hitler.

---

I'm wondering....does Goodwins law apply when you're talking about the holocaust?

Seriously though, there is a HUGE difference here. Germany, and frankly, the rest of the western world did not have a positive opinion of the jews at the time, and Hitler manipulated this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
No. And I take it you're in favor of criminal libel laws where you can be put in jail, as you put it, for "telling lies"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
I'm wondering....does Godwin's law apply when you're talking about the holocaust?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Hitler by himself was not the problem.
[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

---

Sure I'll buy that.

As far as free speech is concerned. Sure Zundel or anyone else for that matter can talk to friends and family etc. and let them know what a great man Hitler was etc. etc.

But when you try to 'educate' the masses by publishing a book, or material on a website etc. about how great Hitler was, or why the holocaust never took place, you have crossed a significant line.

What should Zundel's punishment be if not jail now?

A slap on the wrist?
A spanking on his behind?
An admonishment?
A public apology?
A monetary fine?
A promise he won't repeat his offences?

I don't think so.

In case you didn't know, Zundel was trying to make as many people as possible believe that the holocaust didn't take place.

There's a difference between that and simply opening your mouth (free speech) and stating your opinions.

quote:

---

In case you didn't know, Zundel was trying to make as many people as possible believe that the holocaust didn't take place.

There's a difference between that and simply opening your mouth (free speech) and stating your opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So what if someone wanted to make as many people as possible believe that evolution didn't take place and the world is only 6,000 years old, should he be jailed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So what if someone wanted to make as many people as possible believe that evolution didn't take place and the world is only 6,000 years old, should he be jailed?

---

quote:

---

Young Earth didn't lead to a slaughter of millions and millions of people.

---

Certainly God did with the flood. If the flood is denied should the person who denies it be jailed? What of Sodom?

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I agree. But why are you raising anti-Semitism? If someone puts up a website saying, "I hate Jews, they're arrogant SOBs, too smart for their own good, greedy and grasping, I prefer Italians, much better race of people", etc. - I know of no law which prohibits that nor do I propose any.

I repeat, why are you talking about anti-Semitism? The German law refers to the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated by Germany against the peoples of Europe and the world. Germany has banned denial of this truth as one method of healing, educating, and preventing. I support this effort 100%.

Why are you talking about anti-Semitism? This isn't about Jews.

---

My point was of an entirely different nature. Sorry if I was not being clear.

My point was that unlike Canada where there has never been a National Socialist movement of any serious weight in the political spectrum, Germany has a direct an ongoing political relationship with the movement. This is not just about "healing," "educating" and "bismirching" or lies, libel etc. The laws in Germany are designed to be used directly against active post war organizations with National Socialist pretensions.

My point is that the actual political relationship with National Socialism in Germany is much different than it is in much of the world.

Take that as you will, as my presentation of this fact is not intended to bolster any side of the argument presently being waged on this thread, but simply to note that the "social and historical conditions" in Germany relating to National Socialism as an active social movement are somewhat different than they are here.

In other words these laws are not merely a tool for "soft core" social engineering, but tools for "hard core" repression of a political movement.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

My point is that the actual political relationship with National Socialism in Germany is much different than it is in much of the world.

---

If I understand you correctly, then I think I agree wtih you.

Germany committed huge crimes against the world's people because of these political organizations. To crush them by legal measures - including suppressing their ideological arms, such as the denial of the Holocaust - is perfectly legitimate in the context of such a country.

Likewise, France, which saw the creation of a puppet regime and which collaborated with the Nazis in counter-insurgency, deportation, etc., is perfectly justified in legislating against the Vichyites and their ideological reflections.

A law against Holocaust denial in Canada would seem somewhat perverse to me, for the same reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noops:

Zundel is a very bad man and should be punished.

---

To reiterate part of the quote from A Man for All Seasons I cited above:

quote:

---

Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.

---

Zundel article

quote:

---

This country's Jewish community certainly cheers the decision, as it did the Canadian Human Rights tribunal ruling shutting down Ernst Zundel's website in January 2002. In both cases the message was clear: Holocaust denial is a pernicious form of anti-Semitism that nourishes the fantasies of conspiracists and is designed to excite feelings of hatred and contempt against members of the Jewish community. We are well rid of him. And if in prison he becomes a tragic or a romantic figure for those who espouse his views, that is a small price to pay. His incarceration is a cautionary message to those who would emulate his activities. The freedom of speech that all democratic societies cherish cannot be exploited by the Zundels of this world to foment hate.

---

Most democratic countries have signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Hatred, which includes the following provision:

Each signatory State

quote:

---

Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin

---

It is true that the United States has a tradition of First Amendment absolutism, which privileges that Amendment over any other. However, some people believe that racism and racial intolerance have damaged the United States terribly, and that it might be a salutory departure from entrenched tradition to outlaw speech involving racial hatred.

As it stands, the US allows the outlawing of speech, but only speech which threatens a PRESENT danger. Long term dangers cannot be outlawed under this interpretation of the US Constitution.

quote:

---

While I understand that some people think that no opinion, however heinous, should be punished, that view is very much a minority one among democratic societies.

---

Of course, it goes without saying that that doesn't make it right.

Most of us accept that calls for genocide goes beyond freedom of speech and should be punished.

So, it isn't a huge stretch to say that open calls advocating racism should also be illegal. And, fair enough - as long as we are able to make the distinction between opposing the goals of a particular group - and racism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

Today, it's the Holocaust. Tomorrow it's racism. The next day, sexual orientation. Then, breeding "class hatred." To be followed by attacks on organized religion. There is no intellectually honest stopping point.

---

You could say the same for freedom of movement.

Today we jail thieves and rapists and murderers.

Tomorrow it's parking violators.

The next day, people who are rude.

After that, people the government doesn't like.

There is no intellectually honest stopping point.

Unless you recognize that society passes judgement on certain unacceptable behaviours and you don't think in formulaic terms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
The connection that I am missing is that holocaust denial is anti-semitism.

---

Well, I'm going to repeat this issue which Cueball innocently confused:

It's not about anti-Semitism.

Holocaust denial is about pro-Nazism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You could say the same for freedom of movement.

Today we jail thieves and rapists and murderers.

Tomorrow it's parking violators.

The next day, people who are rude.

After that, people the government doesn't like.

There is no intellectually honest stopping point.

Unless you recognize that society passes judgement on certain unacceptable behaviours and you don't think in formulaic terms.

If your definition of "intellectual honesty" is defending the "right" of Nazis to spew venom without fear of incarceration, and (I would imagine also) the "right" of moviegoers to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre as a joke, and the right to publish child pornography - be my guest. Thank God I'm not an intellectual.

---

Initially, you confuse action with speech.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Under your logic, strike picketers could be thrown in jail for criminal libel for simply carrying signs and handing out leaflets containing charges that the boss is a thief.

---

That's nonsense - I never said calling someone a thief (especially in an arguably figurative context) constituted criminal libel - and you just don't understand the caselaw surrounding this article of the Criminal Code. Not surprising, since you weren't even aware of its existence.

The difference between him and Zundel is very simple, we pay attention to Zundel, and everytime we try to jail him, throw him out of the country, or try to stop him from speaking we bring more attention to him and make those few people who believe him FAR more fervent in their beliefs that there's something being hidden.

The media has been very successful in keeping people who believe that the moon landing was faked from being mentioned too often by ignoring them, and I honestly believe we should be doing the same thing with Zundel.

But I also believe that, in a stable liberal democracy, we should allow as much freedom of speech and openness of debate as we can -- especially about matters of current and historical fact. We should be able to debate whether there really was a genocide of Armenians in Turkey, or whether Milosevic had genocidal intentions, or whether George W. Bush has genocidal intentions. We should be allowed to debate whether the destruction of the World Trade Center was a CIA plot, or a Zionist conspiracy, or instigated by little green men from alpha centauri. And if someone denies that there were war crimes in Bosnia in the 1990s, or in Turkey in the 1910s, or in Iraq in the 2000s, or in Germany and Poland in the 1940s, they should be allowed to voice that opinion.

Incitement to violence or acts of violence against any identifiable group or individual should be punished with the full force of the criminal law.

But hateful ideas like Zundel's need to be exposed to the clear light of day, not driven underground to fester and spread their poison.

quote:

---

Today, it's the Holocaust. Tomorrow it's racism. The next day, sexual orientation. Then, breeding "class hatred." To be followed by attacks on organized religion. There is no intellectually honest stopping point.

---

But Canada, Germany, France, Spain, South Africa, etc. etc, etc. somehow seem able to maintain extremely open societies while treating advocacy of genocide as something different.

I guess we are all dishonest.

Either that, or "slippery slope" arguments demand some artificial reason for drawing a line HERE, rather than THERE.

The line which these countries have decided to draw is based on experience. The history of the last century amply demonstrates that advocacy of genocide can actually lead to genocide.

The world is filled with situations in which no line can easily be drawn. For example, if I pictorially represent a fourteen year old having sex with an adult, that will send me to jail. But why 14? Why not 15? 16? Who is to say that the PARTICULAR 14 year old is unable to consent?

Most of the world has decided that advocacy of genocide is a harm which should be criminalized.

As the UN Convention puts it, the signatories are convinced that:

quote:

---

Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere,

...

Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,

Alarmed by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation,

Resolved to ... prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,

---

quote:

---

The world is filled with situations in which no line can easily be drawn. For example, if I pictorially represent a fourteen year old having sex with an adult, that will send me to jail. But why 14? Why not 15? 16? Who is to say that the PARTICULAR 14 year old is unable to consent?

Most of the world has decided that advocacy of genocide is a harm which should be criminalized.

As the UN Convention puts it, the signatories are convinced that:

---

Most would agree with the sentiments expressed there. But I wouldn't want them to form the basis of a criminal statute.

As for line drawing, I never said a line shouldn't be drawn. I'm all in favor of that. But I'm in favor of line that is drawn between speech and direct incitement posing a clean and present danger, not between forms of speech.

And maybe I'm wrong, but did Zundel call for genocide, or did he just claim it never took place?

[ 16 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What I am unclear on is why it is illegal to offer historical revisionism on only one fact of history? Why not all? For example, did Armenians not suffer enough for their historical reality to be protected?

---

quote:

---

It's not about anti-Semitism.

Holocaust denial is about pro-Nazism.

If that's not clear, let me know and I'll elaborate.

---

It's not clear. Please elaborate.

It's likely that someone who denies the holocaust is an anti-semite.

It's even likely that someone who denies the holocaust is a Nazi sympathizer.

But denying the holocaust by itself is neither anti-semitism or Nazi sympathizing - it is merely incorrect assesment of history.

quote:

---

"Illegal" in which country? In Germany? Canada? or Turkey? If you don't recognize the context, the discussion remains cramped.

---

So, it's not just the holocaust, and it's not just Jews.

Josh may also be right that advocating genocide should be legal unless there is a "clear and present danger" that it is about to be acted upon.

That is the traditional US policy, and it may be that the US is sufficiently on guard against violent racists.

However, if other countries think that even a more distant danger should be criminalized, I don't think there is anything intellectually dishonest about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

In any. A historical truth is a historical truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Just so my point is clear, I want Zundel to rot in prison - not because he debates historical truths, but because he is Nazi scum.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
So many people think it is just denying historical truth. Clearly, its much more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noops:

I couldn't have said it any better myself!

---

quote:

---

not because he debates historical truths, but because he is Nazi scum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So why not just introduce an honest law saying this set of ideas, Nazism ( today, maybe socialism tomorrow, and then atheism ) are criminal, rather than hiding behind the historical facts of the holocaust as a fact of history more important than any other fact of history including other, and arguably more successful ( if a successful act of genocide es extermination ), acts of genocide?

---

I have no problem with Zundel being jailed for being a Nazi if that is indeed what he is being jailed for. But I see he was not charged with being a Nazi. How right can a law be when it has to be disguised as something else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
... his being jailed for spreading lies and hate, to his being jailed for being anti-semitic, to his being jailed because he is a Nazi, to his being jailed because his opinions are recruitments tools and I should be thrilled that he is jailed ... for what?

---

I don't follow you. You're conflating different people's opinions? Here are mine.

I believe no one should be jailed, fined, punished for:

1. "being a Nazi" (absent any socially offensive activities, but then the charge would be different).

2. "being anti-Semitic" or, in fact, being any kind of racist. It's not a crime, nor should it.

3. "spreading lies" - not a crime, otherwise the jails would be overflowing.

4. "spreading hate" - not a crime, unless it fits the very narrow definition of the Criminal Code, or it is combined with another criminal offence, in which case it may aggravate it and lead to a more severe penalty.

5. "not believing that the Holocaust happened" - I don't care.

6. "telling someone that the Holocaust didn't happen" - I really don't care.

7. "waging an organized publicity campaign to claim the Holocaust didn't happen" - not a crime in this country, nor do I think it should be - but I'm happy to see that those countries which authored or were complicit in the Holocaust have banned this activity. Right on, more power to them!

quote:

---

I have no problem with Zundel being jailed for being a Nazi if that is indeed what he is being jailed for.

---

I would have a problem with that in Canada, but not in Germany - if, as you say, he had been charged with that.

quote:

---

But I see he was not charged with being a Nazi. How right can a law be when it has to be disguised as something else?

---

It's not disguised. He was jailed for inciting racial hatred, with organized Holocaust denial being the central theme of that. That's illegal in Germany, and long may it continue to be!

quote:

---

[Nazism] thrived because otherwise good people were willing to accept a little hate and demonizing of other peoples in exchange for social and political achievement.

---

People who follow the American legal paradigm on this are certainly entitled to give "freedom of speech" unlimited value.

But the purpose behind the international conventions which outlaw speech which advocates genocide is DANGER.

The American rule has protected speech, but it has not really been so sensitive to the protection of minorities.

In the American paradigm, speech can be controlled only if it presents a "clear and PRESENT danger". A clear danger which is not immediately present is not addressed.

That may not be so satisfactory for people belonging to a threatened minority.

We already have similar laws in Canada.

You can be prosecuted for being a member of Hells Angels or of Al-Qaeda. I'm not sure that there is much of a difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
A lot of people said a lot of things.

---