Anti-Semitism Explained

[dreolin]

Indeed: the Wiki article describes the different legal systems involved and explains the 'omission' in the US. It also describes the debate between different(actual credentialed) historians.

The various nations have made such laws based on their own 'national' perceptions. Australia has such a law - despite having a minute Jewish population. The passing of such laws cannot be reasonably attributed to 'Jewish pressure'.....but of course 'reasonably' des not apply to bigots and conspiranutter 'True Believers'.

Israel has such a law because it is home to the greatest percentage of Holocaust survivors. I think it's understandable on that basis, never mind anyone's religion.....

I suspect if one were to research the topic, that each nation enacting such Holocaust denial laws had its own particular reasons for doing so - whether or not one agrees with those reasons, I do not see any evidence of any 'outside pressure' being involved.

Is "outside pressure" your loophole phrase?

A lot of the laws mentioned aren't Holocaust denial laws per se but are laws in broader scope that roll holocaust denial in.

I think, in many cases, Jewish groups or organizations are behind the prosecutions under such laws.

I am not really sure what your point is.

Also, you may want to look into the Holocaust Denial laws in Australia and see which groups are fighting against their repeal...mostly Jewish groups or Jewish individuals. So what, but why try to shove it of on someone else and say they are not behind it or have little to do with it, if that is what you are saying.

Fighting against the repeal -IMHO - is not the same thing as suggesting such laws in the first place. And I was unaware that repeal was even being considered in Australia, or anyplace else: do you have a link?

My 'point', such as it was, was that *individual nations have created such laws as those individual nations' citizens thought best, for their (national) individual reasons* I do not see a reason to regard the enactment of such laws as anything but revulsion and a means to signal rejection of the Nazi enterprise.

I have no idea what your bolded "question" is supposed to mean.

As for the prosecution of violation of such laws being due to 'Jewish groups' - I doubt it. DA's do not proceed unless there is a good chance of obtaining a conviction: if there had been no violation, there'd be no case to prosecute.

If you disapprove of such prosecution, that of course is your right. I wonder, do you feel any sense of disgust when someone proclaims that the Irish wildly exaggerated the extent of the Famine, or claims the conditions on the 'coffin ships' were also exaggerated - or perhaps due to the actions of the Irish themselves? (NB: I absolutely hold no such view, I am simply attempting to give a possible 'comparative' to much Holocaust denial as we've read in this very thread....)

Yes, MHunterB, all history should be subject to state censor review and legislation enacted to prohibit disagreement with the accepted version.

Jewish groups push for the prosecution under such laws. Other groups ignore them. How many aboriginal Australians are bitchin' and moanin' about idiots distorting their history. Very few because most who distort their history are regarded as what they are...idiots.

I disregard, for the most part, distortions of the starvation (what you so ignorantly and stupidly call a "famine' that occurred in a food exporting cvountry) and certainly would not want laws forbidding the questioning of it...or perhaps you accept the version that 8,000,000 died or left Ireland.

That is cool though. let's enact legislation that restricts free speech, but only if it is for the right reasons...things that revulse us.

 

[Coyote]

Is "outside pressure" your loophole phrase?

A lot of the laws mentioned aren't Holocaust denial laws per se but are laws in broader scope that roll holocaust denial in.

I think, in many cases, Jewish groups or organizations are behind the prosecutions under such laws.

I am not really sure what your point is.

Also, you may want to look into the Holocaust Denial laws in Australia and see which groups are fighting against their repeal...mostly Jewish groups or Jewish individuals. So what, but why try to shove it of on someone else and say they are not behind it or have little to do with it, if that is what you are saying.

Fighting against the repeal -IMHO - is not the same thing as suggesting such laws in the first place. And I was unaware that repeal was even being considered in Australia, or anyplace else: do you have a link?

My 'point', such as it was, was that *individual nations have created such laws as those individual nations' citizens thought best, for their (national) individual reasons* I do not see a reason to regard the enactment of such laws as anything but revulsion and a means to signal rejection of the Nazi enterprise.

I have no idea what your bolded "question" is supposed to mean.

As for the prosecution of violation of such laws being due to 'Jewish groups' - I doubt it. DA's do not proceed unless there is a good chance of obtaining a conviction: if there had been no violation, there'd be no case to prosecute.

If you disapprove of such prosecution, that of course is your right. I wonder, do you feel any sense of disgust when someone proclaims that the Irish wildly exaggerated the extent of the Famine, or claims the conditions on the 'coffin ships' were also exaggerated - or perhaps due to the actions of the Irish themselves? (NB: I absolutely hold no such view, I am simply attempting to give a possible 'comparative' to much Holocaust denial as we've read in this very thread....)

Yes, MHunterB, all history should be subject to state censor review and legislation enacted to prohibit disagreement with the accepted version.

Jewish groups push for the prosecution under such laws. Other groups ignore them. How many aboriginal Australians are bitchin' and moanin' about idiots distorting their history. Very few because most who distort their history are regarded as what they are...idiots.

I disregard, for the most part, distortions of the starvation (what you so ignorantly and stupidly call a "famine' that occurred in a food exporting cvountry) and certainly would not want laws forbidding the questioning of it...or perhaps you accept the version that 8,000,000 died or left Ireland.

That is cool though. let's enact legislation that restricts free speech, but only if it is for the right reasons...things that revulse us.

Actually, I don't think she's in support of legislation that restricts free speech....that's not what I am reading in her statement.

I think the argument is that it is not necessarily Jewish groups that push for Holocaust denial legislation. I can't find anything showing what groups push for such legislation but wikipedia notes that those laws are inacted most commonly in countries that already limit free speech to a greater degree than we do.

 

[dreolin]

Fighting against the repeal -IMHO - is not the same thing as suggesting such laws in the first place. And I was unaware that repeal was even being considered in Australia, or anyplace else: do you have a link?

My 'point', such as it was, was that *individual nations have created such laws as those individual nations' citizens thought best, for their (national) individual reasons* I do not see a reason to regard the enactment of such laws as anything but revulsion and a means to signal rejection of the Nazi enterprise.

I have no idea what your bolded "question" is supposed to mean.

As for the prosecution of violation of such laws being due to 'Jewish groups' - I doubt it. DA's do not proceed unless there is a good chance of obtaining a conviction: if there had been no violation, there'd be no case to prosecute.

If you disapprove of such prosecution, that of course is your right. I wonder, do you feel any sense of disgust when someone proclaims that the Irish wildly exaggerated the extent of the Famine, or claims the conditions on the 'coffin ships' were also exaggerated - or perhaps due to the actions of the Irish themselves? (NB: I absolutely hold no such view, I am simply attempting to give a possible 'comparative' to much Holocaust denial as we've read in this very thread....)

Yes, MHunterB, all history should be subject to state censor review and legislation enacted to prohibit disagreement with the accepted version.

Jewish groups push for the prosecution under such laws. Other groups ignore them. How many aboriginal Australians are bitchin' and moanin' about idiots distorting their history. Very few because most who distort their history are regarded as what they are...idiots.

I disregard, for the most part, distortions of the starvation (what you so ignorantly and stupidly call a "famine' that occurred in a food exporting cvountry) and certainly would not want laws forbidding the questioning of it...or perhaps you accept the version that 8,000,000 died or left Ireland.

That is cool though. let's enact legislation that restricts free speech, but only if it is for the right reasons...things that revulse us.

Actually, I don't think she's in support of legislation that restricts free speech....that's not what I am reading in her statement.

I think the argument is that it is not necessarily Jewish groups that push for Holocaust denial legislation. I can't find anything showing what groups push for such legislation but wikipedia notes that those laws are inacted most commonly in countries that already limit free speech to a greater degree than we do.

I said it was Jewish groups who push for prosecutions under the legislation, not that they pushed for the legislation where other groups, not so much, if at all. I am sorry if that was unclear.

For instance, the Irish feel very strongly about calling the starvation by the English a
"famine", which we consider a denial and is probably covered under many of these laws, but we just shrug and move on. That was no less a tragedy than the Holocaust.

Furthermore, I haven't heard of any of the other groups targeted by Hitler pursuing this legally. I learned a long time ago that the best thing to do about death is walk away from it.

LOL...at this point though, I no longer care. It doesn't hurt me. The only people it really hurts is Jewish people. The only people it really helps is the Holocaust deniers because they get the publicity that boosts book sales.

 

[Roudy]

Is "outside pressure" your loophole phrase?

A lot of the laws mentioned aren't Holocaust denial laws per se but are laws in broader scope that roll holocaust denial in.

I think, in many cases, Jewish groups or organizations are behind the prosecutions under such laws.

I am not really sure what your point is.

Also, you may want to look into the Holocaust Denial laws in Australia and see which groups are fighting against their repeal...mostly Jewish groups or Jewish individuals. So what, but why try to shove it of on someone else and say they are not behind it or have little to do with it, if that is what you are saying.

You have a problem with Holocaust Denial laws? Write a letter to the German Government and let them know your thoughts. Perhaps they, the perpetrators of the Holocaust, found a reason for it to be necessary.

I have a problem with any legislation that prohibits free speech, and that includes your insignificant and meaningless meandering. All Holocaust denial laws really accomplish is to allow those who deny the Holocaust to be viewed by many as champions of free speech, turning what should be villains into would be heroes by confusing the issue. Perhaps you would rather have these people discuss history in hushed tones in a beer hall.

As ar as I am concerned, any American who embraces such laws is betraying the ideals of our Constitution. We should be peacefully spreading our way of life to the rest of the world in word and deed, not the other way around.

Why should I write Germany? Why would they listen to me? I am not German.

I would have a problem with it if it was the US. And the US doesn't. So you can deny the holocaust all you want, it just makes you sound like yet another insane, Jew hating Neo nazi or IslamoNazi lunatic, which you are.

However, In Germany, since it is the country that the holocaust occurred, THEY have absolutely no doubt what actually happened, based on THEIR OWN evidence THEY already have. It is therefore considered nothing but hate speech, and an incitement to violence,something they'd like to put behind their countries history.

Mind your own business what laws countries decide to have, just like you mind your own business when Muslim Neanderthals go apeshit when somebody says anything about Islam or insults their prophet. Actually, you regularly defend all the barbaric medieval laws and total lack of freedom of speech, when it comes to Muslims, but this ONE law forbidding holocaust denial bothers the heck out of you? Now why is that? Gee , lemme guess....

 

[dreolin]

You have a problem with Holocaust Denial laws? Write a letter to the German Government and let them know your thoughts. Perhaps they, the perpetrators of the Holocaust, found a reason for it to be necessary.

I have a problem with any legislation that prohibits free speech, and that includes your insignificant and meaningless meandering. All Holocaust denial laws really accomplish is to allow those who deny the Holocaust to be viewed by many as champions of free speech, turning what should be villains into would be heroes by confusing the issue. Perhaps you would rather have these people discuss history in hushed tones in a beer hall.

As ar as I am concerned, any American who embraces such laws is betraying the ideals of our Constitution. We should be peacefully spreading our way of life to the rest of the world in word and deed, not the other way around.

Why should I write Germany? Why would they listen to me? I am not German.

I would have a problem with it if it was the US. And the US doesn't. So you can deny the holocaust all you want, it just makes you sound like yet another insane, Jew hating Neo nazi or IslamoNazi lunatic, which you are.

However, In Germany, since it is the country that the holocaust occurred, THEY have absolutely no doubt what actually happened, based on THEIR OWN evidence THEY already have. It is therefore considered nothing but hate speech, and an incitement to violence,something they'd like to put behind their countries history.

Mind your own business what laws countries decide to have, just like you mind your own business when Muslim Neanderthals go apeshit when somebody says anything about Islam or insults their prophet. Actually, you regularly defend all the barbaric medieval laws and total lack of freedom of speech, when it comes to Muslims, but this ONE law forbidding holocaust denial bothers the heck out of you? Now why is that? Gee , lemme guess....

I believe all people should have absolute freedom of speech, with thre exception of inciteful hate speech. Scrutiny of the Holocaust does not qualify as inciteful hate speech.

I have never denied the Holocaust.

The Holocaust occurred outside of Germany, mainly in Poland.

I respect freedom of religious belief and have never defended medieval or barbaric laws.