Holocaust denial: historical research or ethical trap?

[Sampharo]

I saw this thread before the server crash and I was hoping its OP would republish, but since it didn't happen, I am resubmitting it here for discussion.

Holocaust question has been thrown around like it's a weapon lately. You feel like its denial is being treated as severe moral and ethical deviance. When someone says: No I don't think the Holocaust is as touted. People would go: OH MY GOD :omg: :nervous:

Same way if someone says: that guy violated his own daughter!!... normal response "OH MY GOD :omg: :nervous:". Or that guy stole his parents entire lifelong savings and lost it in Las Vegas, where he got a stripper pregnant!... Appropriate "OH MY GOD :omg: :nervous:". (Strangely enough, saying you don't think God is real, produces a miserly "So? :hmm:"

Here's my real query: Yes we know it's illegal in Europe to deny the holocaust or research anything that can question it (that alone is a big question mark that you can feel free to explain or apprehend), but what is that moral significance of believing or disbelieving that have been worked into it, that people are condemned for?

[GuestFellow]

I don't think denying the Holocaust makes you morally a bad person unless if you are purposely being provocative and trying to offend people. However denying the Holocaust does not make you look very intelligent.

I don't understand why they have laws to prevent people from questioning the Holocaust...all History is under some form of scrutiny.

[Mysterious Uk]

Is it not more about respect?.. to just say 'nope i dont think it happened' is just so insulting to the people who who have been murdered or tortured.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

As far as I understand, holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in the US or the UK, although other laws may apply, such as incitement to racial hatred. In places where it is illegal, it is seen as an attempt to ensure that Nazism does not reappear.

Peace

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[GuestFellow]

^ I think in Germany you could get arrested.

[Sampharo]

Well yes, it is illegal in most European countries and can easily put you in jail for years:

British Irving jailed for 3 years for denying there were gas chambers in a specific site, despite later retraction

Jean Plantin, editor of a magazine called Akribeia, jailed for publishing works that called into question the scope of the Holocaust

Like I said, it is just a big question mark as to why ILLEGAL.

If you say disrespectful? Doesn't make sense. It is actually the opposite, because it is respectful to question and research information over and over to strengthen it with proof and argument. Why is it though disrespectful to the 6 million jews, but not disresepctful to the other 70 million that died in WW2 altogether, over 50 million were civilians? Why is this law so specific against ONLY the holocaust and would punish REVIEW and RESEARCH, and actually banned books for doing so (calling them negationist for mentioning theories or arguments or reseach that question even a small part of the scopre of the holocaust). Why is it easy to flat out white-wash Armenian genocide, or ignore the Rwandan genocide, or over 25 years no one cared about the millions wiped out in Cambodia's genocide. Why a law only for the holocaust?

The bigger question is why behave with such indignant morality outrage if someone is not immediately respond to the usual question by "Of course I don't deny the holocaust!!"?

[Mysterious Uk]

If you say disrespectful? Doesn't make sense. It is actually the opposite, because it is respectful to question and research information over and over to strengthen it with proof and argument. Why is it though disrespectful to the 6 million jews, but not disresepctful to the other 70 million that died in WW2 altogether, over 50 million were civilians? Why is this law so specific against ONLY the holocaust and would punish REVIEW and RESEARCH, and actually banned books for doing so (calling them negationist for mentioning theories or arguments or reseach that question even a small part of the scopre of the holocaust). Why is it easy to flat out white-wash Armenian genocide, or ignore the Rwandan genocide, or over 25 years no one cared about the millions wiped out in Cambodia's genocide. Why a law only for the holocaust?

The bigger question is why behave with such indignant morality outrage if someone is not immediately respond to the usual question by "Of course I don't deny the holocaust!!"?

Oright calm down, i didn't mean it is illegal to deny the holocaust because it is disrespectful. I meant it is disrespectful to outright deny the holocaust, because it did happen. In other words: i dont know why it is illegal to review and research it. N e hu, you'll find an answer from a member inshallah.. if not, look it up.

[GuestFellow]

Oright calm down, i didn't mean it is illegal to deny the holocaust because it is disrespectful. I meant it is disrespectful to outright deny the holocaust, because it did happen. In other words: i dont know why it is illegal to review and research it. N e hu, you'll find an answer from a member inshallah.. if not, look it up.

I don't know myself why it is illegal to review and research it. It does not sound like encouraging racial hatred but instead trying to clear things up about that part of history. I've heard the Holocaust was used as a shield for the Zionist regime to justify the killings of the Palestinians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

I'm not saying that is why the government in Europe have banned people to research the Holocaust but I think it should be taken into a consideration since the topic was brought up. If someone researches the Holocaust, and the findings suggest the treatment of Jews were not as bad as we thought, it may affect the impact the Holocaust had on people...though what I said just speculation. There is strong evidence to suggest the treatment of those died during the Holocaust was awful.

[Foxhole]

I don't know myself why it is illegal to review and research it. It does not sound like encouraging racial hatred but instead trying to clear things up about that part of history. I've heard the Holocaust was used as a shield for the Zionist regime to justify the killings of the Palestinians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

I'm not saying that is why the government in Europe have banned people to research the Holocaust but I think it should be taken into a consideration since the topic was brought up. If someone researches the Holocaust, and the findings suggest the treatment of Jews were not as bad as we thought, it may affect the impact the Holocaust had on people...though what I said just speculation. There is strong evidence to suggest the treatment of those died during the Holocaust was awful.

Holocaust denial laws are stupid and childish, but not nearly as stupid and childish as those who deny the Holocaust.

[GuestFellow]

Holocaust denial laws are stupid and childish, but not nearly as stupid and childish as those who deny the Holocaust.

Yeah I agree.

[Muezzin]

I don't know myself why it is illegal to review and research it. It does not sound like encouraging racial hatred but instead trying to clear things up about that part of history. I've heard the Holocaust was used as a shield for the Zionist regime to justify the killings of the Palestinians.

Extremists hijack a tragic historical genocide in order to justify a current genocide. Simples.

I'm not saying that is why the government in Europe have banned people to research the Holocaust but I think it should be taken into a consideration since the topic was brought up. If someone researches the Holocaust, and the findings suggest the treatment of Jews were not as bad as we thought, it may affect the impact the Holocaust had on people...though what I said just speculation.

It's absurd to illegalize research into the Holocaust in this manner. Yes, there are bigots who deliberately try to minimise the severity of the genocide (which was not limited to Jews) in order to further their agendas. But because of bigots, nobody is allowed to research this area of history? It's surprising that in the modern, secular, scientific age, we still have such taboos, no?

Let the bigots distort and outright deny history, contrary to actual historical events. Let them look like idiots. How can they be corrected/intellectually flattened without research into the events?

There is strong evidence to suggest the treatment of those died during the Holocaust was awful.

Indeed.

[Hugo]

Well yes, it is illegal in most European countries and can easily put you in jail for years:

British Irving jailed for 3 years for denying there were gas chambers in a specific site, despite later retraction

Jean Plantin, editor of a magazine called Akribeia, jailed for publishing works that called into question the scope of the Holocaust

Like I said, it is just a big question mark as to why ILLEGAL.

If you say disrespectful? Doesn't make sense. It is actually the opposite, because it is respectful to question and research information over and over to strengthen it with proof and argument. Why is it though disrespectful to the 6 million jews, but not disresepctful to the other 70 million that died in WW2 altogether, over 50 million were civilians? Why is this law so specific against ONLY the holocaust and would punish REVIEW and RESEARCH, and actually banned books for doing so (calling them negationist for mentioning theories or arguments or reseach that question even a small part of the scopre of the holocaust). Why is it easy to flat out white-wash Armenian genocide, or ignore the Rwandan genocide, or over 25 years no one cared about the millions wiped out in Cambodia's genocide. Why a law only for the holocaust?

The bigger question is why behave with such indignant morality outrage if someone is not immediately respond to the usual question by "Of course I don't deny the holocaust!!"?

It is disrespectful because to deny it is to deny that a regime supported by the people of a nation decided that another a group of human beings could be exterminated and not only decided but systematically actually did it.

The law was passed by the German people and it is a testimony to their honesty and sense of repentance for the committal of such an horrendous atrocity. The law reminds them and the world the depths of depravity to which we all as fellow human being can descend.

The law does not prevent research but it is surely an absurdity to do research to show that nothing happened as some have done, if it did not happend there is nothing to research - one cannot prove that an event did not take place since that would mean there is no evidence to find - in this case there is so much evidence that one has to be an idiot or a biased bigot to ignore it.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say but it is obvious that it is simply selfish moralising to complain about this law because there is not a law for others?

[GuestFellow]

^ I think it comes down to freedom of expression. Some people assume when there are laws to prevent people speaking against a sensitive topic then someone has something to hide.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have never heard of a law banning people from researching the Holocaust. Has anyone got any evidence that such a law exists anywhere?

Peace

[GuestFellow]

Greetings,

I have never heard of a law banning people from researching the Holocaust. Has anyone got any evidence that such a law exists anywhere?

Peace

I skimmed read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_ag...locaust_denial

I don't see anything that would suggest it would ban people from researching the Holocaust.

[Sampharo]

It is disrespectful because to deny it is to deny that a regime supported by the people of a nation decided that another a group of human beings could be exterminated and not only decided but systematically actually did it.

Sorry don't mean to argue with you, but you are using the very official line that is not passing mustard with any logical person and seems to have been fed to the public. Like Guestfellow said, if you have a law to protect against even research, then there's something to hide. If they DID do it, why a law against those who will study it? The law does not prevent only outright denial, otherwise it would have been clear. It prosecutes and jails and censors people, books and articles that aim to even calculate the scope. One of the American writers (immediately labeled racist and anti-semite) simply wanted to track the census of jews before and after the war in order to create a map of where were the most jews killed. Another person describes the extreme prejudice of the holocaust laws very well when he said: 6 million seem to be such a holy number, that 5.9 a fellow would be prosecuted for, but if they say 7 or 8, no problem.

However despite all that. The strange thing I hope you or other members can answer (maybe you since you seem to be in support,) is why the moral indignation against people who were not even born at the time, do not belong to any of the sides of that conflict? Why is it "ethically" wrong for one person to simply say "I don't know for sure but some details don't add up!", and they are immediately criminalized?

I am basically going past the idea of just the law, I am treating it as the speed limit law now and just accepting it. But when someone goes 10 kms above the speed limit, nobody demonizes them. If someone wants to research the holocaust or says he is not fully convinced of one or two details, the person is demonized. This is in regards to a thread posted here in which a person asked accusingly: "is it true that muslims deny the holocaust?" and I found that strange, because the Islamic nation had nothing to do with it and most Islamic countries don't have the law, so it is a moral accusation obviously.

[Sampharo]

I skimmed read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_ag...locaust_denial

I don't see anything that would suggest it would ban people from researching the Holocaust.

Brother, I think we all know that wikipedia is less than useless in any controversial subject. Try Omar Ibn Al-Khattab page history to see the garbage that was fought to get it out.

The scope of the word "denial" encompasses researching anything that calls it into question. The term negationist is to publish or quote any theory that challenges that SCOPE or existence of the Holocaust.

A review of one of the people mentioned above "Jean Plantin" would show you that he was jailed and had his books banned specifically "for naming sources that call into question the scope of the Holocaust". He equally published works that confirm many information about Holocaust, and he did not present a conclusion.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist10.html

Garaudy was jailed for his writings that said Holocaust was hijacked and plunged out of proportion to support Israel. It was still called Holocaust denial. The book otherwise has rave reviews from most readers.

Again I don't want to sink into the law itself and its application. Like I said, it's more of the moral demonizing of people who don't necessarily swallow it when they have no problem in believing in scientology, wiccan magic, or the existence and non-existence of God.

For example to portray what I mean by demonizing, is that whomever is accused, he gets strangely attacked and tackled from all directions outside the jurisdiction of the court. One got his merchant account rescinded (Irving) and the other had to defend having his university degrees pulled from him simply because of including reviewing something in the Holocaust that is "generally used" as an excuse to reduce the scope of the guilt of the Germans (he didn't even deny it happened or the number, simply "examined" material that suggested some of the jews died out of disease, which in no way absolves the germans in the first place from their responsibility for having such squalid conditions):

Mr. Joly says that Mr. Lequin "should have interviewed Mr. Plantin more closely before agreeing to be his adviser, so as to know how he stood on the Holocaust." Mr. Lequin worked with Mr. Plantin on his research and essay for his advanced degree, known as the D.E.A., which in France is completed in preparation for the doctorate. The essay was a study of typhus in Nazi concentration camps. Negationist literature often attributes the deaths of the Jews in the camps to the spread of typhus, rather than to a deliberate act of extermination by gas.
Mr. Lequin acknowledges that he was wrong to approve Mr. Plantin for his D.E.A. He says he did not know Mr. Plantin's views on the Holocaust. "I was tricked by this student, and that means I made a mistake," he says in an interview. "That is why I have stepped down as research director." Mr. Lequin adds, however, that his approval of Mr. Plantin's work was qualified. "His work was of mediocre quality, and I did not give him a high enough grade for him to continue his studies toward a doctorate."
...

The University of Lyon III is investigating the circumstances surrounding the granting of the master's degree to Mr. Plantin. Students are now calling for the annulment of Mr. Plantin's two graduate degrees, as well as the formation of a national commission to look into negationism at French universities.
"Our universities' respectability is at risk," says Mathieu Pasquio, the chairman of the largest student association at Lyon II and III. "Our diplomas have been devalued because people like Plantin have gotten degrees from Lyon." He worries that, because Mr. Plantin has advanced degrees and can call himself a historian, his ideas attract attention and win credibility that would otherwise be denied.

Why is anyone who touches the holocaust details necessarily evil and demonized?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Brother, I think we all know that wikipedia is less than useless in any controversial subject.

Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but I would definitely trust it more that revisionisthistory.org.

Again I don't want to sink into the law itself and its application.

Why not? You seem to be convinced that laws exist preventing research into the Holocaust, whereas the rest of us have yet to see any evidence to support this.

Peace

[Sampharo]

Why not? You seem to be convinced that laws exist preventing research into the Holocaust, whereas the rest of us have yet to see any evidence to support this.

Peace

Reading the post properly will show you that supporting evidence is more than sufficient, you can freely find more if you're so inclined by following up online from bbc and reuters after reading the links. And as I said that is not the main topic.

[cat eyes]

it certainly did happen and they experimented on jewish bodies and everything they did horrible stuff and if you don't mind me saying bro i think its insultive to the families that had the grandparents murdered or relatives to believe it all was a lie when there is tones of video footage of what they were doing

[Hugo]

Sorry don't mean to argue with you, but you are using the very official line that is not passing mustard with any logical person and seems to have been fed to the public.

One does not need to be logical to KNOW that the murder of 6 million or 6 for racial reasons is unquestionably a very very bad thing and every right thinking person would say the same thing. If there is any 'mustard' to pass at this stage it is your sense or fellow feeling for humanity.


Like Guestfellow said, if you have a law to protect against even research, then there's something to hide. If they DID do it, why a law against those who will study it? The law does not prevent only outright denial, otherwise it would have been clear. It prosecutes and jails and censors people, books and articles that aim to even calculate the scope. One of the American writers (immediately labeled racist and anti-semite) simply wanted to track the census of jews before and after the war in order to create a map of where were the most jews killed. Another person describes the extreme prejudice of the holocaust laws very well when he said: 6 million seem to be such a holy number, that 5.9 a fellow would be prosecuted for, but if they say 7 or 8, no problem.

Can you actually tell us what law you are talking about and which countries it applies to? Who is this writer you speak of and where was his case reported - so far all you have given us is hearsay.

I am having a hard time knowing where you are - yesterday (28 Oct 2009) it is reported that about 500 were injured or killed in Baghdad - would it make a difference to you if the exact number was say 496 or you had a list of addresses? Would you feel better about it and say "see it was not so bad after all?"

However despite all that. The strange thing I hope you or other members can answer (maybe you since you seem to be in support,) is why the moral indignation against people who were not even born at the time, do not belong to any of the sides of that conflict? Why is it "ethically" wrong for one person to simply say "I don't know for sure but some details don't add up!", and they are immediately criminalized?

Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up....

I am basically going past the idea of just the law, I am treating it as the speed limit law now and just accepting it. But when someone goes 10 kms above the speed limit, nobody demonizes them. If someone wants to research the holocaust or says he is not fully convinced of one or two details, the person is demonized. This is in regards to a thread posted here in which a person asked accusingly: "is it true that muslims deny the holocaust?" and I found that strange, because the Islamic nation had nothing to do with it and most Islamic countries don't have the law, so it is a moral accusation obviously.

Now you back to moralising - the rest of us are guilty but you Muslim you are not. Do you think it is only Christian or atheistic nations carry out genocide and never Muslim ones?

[Sampharo]

I really don't mean to make fun or redicule, but it is actually amazing that (maybe from the ongoing conditioning) that as per exactly my point that this Holocaust thing has been over-bombarded into people's consciousness, that more than one post are assuming that I am personally denying it, despite my saying otherwise in the beginning.

Let's readdress that again: I don't deny the holocaust, neither am I interested in. What I see however is that there are several sources who managed to make logical questions as to the accuracy of the numbers. I will not refer to the law again because I can see a few confusions. My query is:

Many of these references (I mentioned clearly their names (Garaudy and Plantin were examples) and posted the links to all their details of their arrest and trial and even one of the books (just go back and click on the links), so I don't know why some keep saying they're waiting for reference or all I am saying is only hearsay) have been not only prosecuted, but velified and demonized and punished outside the system with the same hate that an outright denier is (and should be) accused of.
David Irving is an example:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/ca...ngs-privileges

what is so demonic about speaking of or printing references or questioning that point at contradictions within the holocaust? Why is it that research into Holocaust contradictions (officially called negationism) as fair as research supporting it?

Now when you say "Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up" I am going to respond by saying... it ISN'T punishable by death. I will actually go on to illustrate by saying that jews and christians living under Islamic rule maintain their religion based on "No compulsion in religion", they're not vilified for not believing in the message of Mohamed.

[Hugo]

I really don't mean to make fun or redicule, but it is actually amazing that (maybe from the ongoing conditioning) that as per exactly my point that this Holocaust thing has been over-bombarded into people's consciousness, that more than one post are assuming that I am personally denying it, despite my saying otherwise in the beginning.

Let's readdress that again: I don't deny the holocaust, neither am I interested in.

You saying "I am not interested in it" tells us all we need to know. How can the deaths of 6 million be of no interest? Are you not keen even passionate to make sure it never happens again?

What I see however is that there are several sources who managed to make logical questions as to the accuracy of the numbers. I will not refer to the law again because I can see a few confusions. My query is:

Many of these references (I mentioned clearly their names (Garaudy and Plantin were examples) and posted the links to all their details of their arrest and trial and even one of the books (just go back and click on the links), so I don't know why some keep saying they're waiting for reference or all I am saying is only hearsay) have been not only prosecuted, but velified and demonized and punished outside the system with the same hate that an outright denier is (and should be) accused of. David Irving is an example:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/ca...ngs-privileges

Let us take Garaudy - would you call him and impartial observer? He denies the holocaust saying its was invented by Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle and also thinks that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy. He is praised repeatedly by much of the Islamic world for saying these things and it has been reported that he supports the genocide of Israel.

Holocaust deniers are not a new breed and they started with Himmler who tried to destroy records and other evidence. There have been plenty of others: Paul Rassinier, Harry Elmer Barnes, Hoggan etc

what is so demonic about speaking of or printing references or questioning that point at contradictions within the holocaust[/B]? Why is it that research into Holocaust contradictions (officially called negationism) as fair as research supporting it?

I think you need to read what these denies say and how they are very selective in their evidence - they are not just asking questions they have an agenda - if its only to sell a lot of books to a huge number of people, notably from the Muslim world, who want to believe it did not happen.

Now when you say "Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up" I am going to respond by saying... it ISN'T punishable by death. I will actually go on to illustrate by saying that jews and christians living under Islamic rule maintain their religion based on "No compulsion in religion", they're not vilified for not believing in the message of Mohamed.

You do seem to have a propensity to ignore that facts. It is true that large numbers of Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule but sadly it is also true that they were often vilified and certainly treated as second class citizens until the Colonial powers put a stop to it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Reading the post properly will show you that supporting evidence is more than sufficient, you can freely find more if you're so inclined by following up online from bbc and reuters after reading the links. And as I said that is not the main topic.

1. I'm not sure what the topic here actually is. Your line of questioning has been very unclear all along.

2. I'm asking about the law that you keep mentioning that supposedly bans research into the Holocaust. Students studying for exams the world over have to research into the Holocaust, and if you think there's a difference between them and the likes of Irving, Garaudy etc., think very carefully about what that difference is.

You are now saying that you don't want to talk about the law anymore, but it looks like your whole case stands or falls on that issue. So where is it?

Peace

[GuestFellow]

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust? It would state very clearly whether it imprisons those who deny the Holocaust and whether or not if it prevents academics to study the Holocaust.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust?

Wikipedia gives relevant excerpts from the legal codes of various countries.

Peace

[Sampharo]

1. I'm not sure what the topic here actually is. Your line of questioning has been very unclear all along.

2. I'm asking about the law that you keep mentioning that supposedly bans research into the Holocaust. Students studying for exams the world over have to research into the Holocaust, and if you think there's a difference between them and the likes of Irving, Garaudy etc., think very carefully about what that difference is.

You are now saying that you don't want to talk about the law anymore, but it looks like your whole case stands or falls on that issue. So where is it?

Peace

The only thing that is clear is that you are desperately trying to twist the issue away from where it started.

Anyone here looking at my opening post will see that I mentioned clearly that the law bans any research that goes AGAINST the holocaust, you keep repeating that I am claiming the law prevents research PERIOD. Any look at my opening post will also show that it was all about understanding the moral and ethical implications of holocaust and my attempt to understanding why people are so aghast when they hear someone denies the holocaust, you keep trying to tel us that it's about the law and want to run around proving a claim that I did not make in the first place.

If you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and follow a simple subject fairly and impartially, then stay out of it.

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust? It would state very clearly whether it imprisons those who deny the Holocaust and whether or not if it prevents academics to study the Holocaust.

I couldn't find the letter of the law as well, but what I found was that it bans denial, as well as negationism or publication of any reference to negationism. (Please look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism. You'll even notice that Holocaust revisionism ties directly to Holocaust denial) Negationism is a title apparently called on anything that attempts to discuss contradictions or weaknesses in the holocaust, as they are classed attempts to deny holocaust. Since the law also says no one can make reference to a negationist theory, no one would be able to publish work that discusses or includes any of that work. That was the official charge on Plantin.

You saying "I am not interested in it" tells us all we need to know. How can the deaths of 6 million be of no interest? Are you not keen even passionate to make sure it never happens again?

Please bare with me, I promise you I am legitimately concerned and interested in this not just arguing you into frustration.

I said I am not interested in... as in not interested in denying the holocaust. Is this what psychologists call a freudian slip? For the second time I explain clearly that I am not denying the holocaust yet it seems that there is so much conditioning to the western mind when someone asks questions is that "he is just denying the holocaust, ATTACK!"

Now when it comes to your other questions, I will use them to further my point of view: yes it's a tragedy that 6 million died. But to ask YOU the same question: Why would the 6 million be MORE IMPORTANT than the 70 million others who died in WW2 who don't have such a systematic protectionism method? Why more important than the 4 million Palestinians and Arabs who died as a result of the nation formed out of repayment for the Holocaust, or more important that the million Iraqis WHO ARE BEING denied even the title of being invaded? Why more important than the millions who died in the cambodian genocide, or the 30 million massacred in China since Mao came into power?

So yes, I am very passionate that NO GENOCIDE happens ever again, but when I see a money making machine and demands at people and countries to gain retribution after compensation, and then a bit of a stink comes from behind them that is being protected from checking on contradictions, then yes I want to passionately ask: what is going on and what is being hidden here, and why the moral drama of checking those details?

You do seem to have a propensity to ignore that facts. It is true that large numbers of Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule but sadly it is also true that they were often vilified and certainly treated as second class citizens until the Colonial powers put a stop to it.

There you go! There is no law preventing you from making such a claim, is there?! Now people can freely research and publish their own twisted or correct versions.

Strangely enough though what you just mentioned, is specifically mentioned in negationism, and is ALSO protected by french law, that textbooks MUST mention the positive side to colonialism.

On 23 February 2005, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority at the French National Assembly voted a law compelling history textbooks and teachers to ". . . acknowledge and recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence abroad, especially in North Africa". [17] Criticized by historians and teachers, among them Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who refused to recognise the French Parliament's right to influence the way history is written, (despite the French Holocaust denial laws, see Loi Gayssot). That law was also challenged by left-wing parties and the former French colonies; critics argued that the law was tantamount to refusing to acknowledge the racism inherent to French colonialism, and that the law proper is a form of historical revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#French_law_re cognising_colonialism.27s_.22positive_value.22

Now you ask any person in the World about colonialism and they will tell you that that is complete hogwash to talk about colonialism "freeing" the jews and christians. It was outright invasion likened to the crusades, and caused the deaths of millions of civilians, and is an atrocity that in this case if any one was less than an outright hypocrit would not dare glorify the holocaust and then dare praise colonialism.

So tell me again, where does the morality deficiency come to denial of the holocaust, but you freely claim your right to claim colonialism as liberation, and ignore the millions of deaths caused?

[HamzaTR]

Greetings,

Wikipedia gives relevant excerpts from the legal codes of various countries.

Peace

thanks for the information. no denial, no research allowed..
well, here is a video. you'll like it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Anyone here looking at my opening post will see that I mentioned clearly that the law bans any research that goes AGAINST the holocaust, you keep repeating that I am claiming the law prevents research PERIOD.

If you don't want me to repeat what you've said, then stop making the claim:

Why is this law so specific against ONLY the holocaust and would punish REVIEW and RESEARCH, and actually banned books for doing so (calling them negationist for mentioning theories or arguments or reseach that question even a small part of the scopre of the holocaust).

Like Guestfellow said, if you have a law to protect against even research, then there's something to hide.

The truth is research in this area is perfectly legal, even if it modifies previous understanding of the Holocaust. Obviously, modifying (and hopefully improving on) previous understanding is one of the primary aims of all research. Researchers do tend to get into trouble, however, if it becomes obvious that their research is working towards a denial agenda, which invariably necessitates manipulation or distortion of facts or data. An objective historian has nothing to fear.

Any look at my opening post will also show that it was all about understanding the moral and ethical implications of holocaust and my attempt to understanding why people are so aghast when they hear someone denies the holocaust, you keep trying to tel us that it's about the law and want to run around proving a claim that I did not make in the first place.

Now can you see why it's so important to write clearly when discussing topics like this?

If you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and follow a simple subject fairly and impartially, then stay out of it.

You're mistaken if you think this is a simple subject. I'd also be very surprised if people reading the thread thought that you were the one being fair and impartial here.

Now when it comes to your other questions, I will use them to further my point of view: yes it's a tragedy that 6 million died. But to ask YOU the same question: Why would the 6 million be MORE IMPORTANT than the 70 million others who died in WW2 who don't have such a systematic protectionism method? Why more important than the 4 million Palestinians and Arabs who died as a result of the nation formed out of repayment for the Holocaust, or more important that the million Iraqis WHO ARE BEING denied even the title of being invaded? Why more important than the millions who died in the cambodian genocide, or the 30 million massacred in China since Mao came into power?

Is anyone claiming that all these deaths are unimportant? A human life is a human life.

Peace

[JaffaCake]

I can't believe that anyone (including Ahmadinejad) can see no distinction between:

1) Civilian casualties inflicted as a by-product of attacking a military target (e.g. bombing fortified cities or military production facilities in built-up areas)

2) Separating out a group of civilians and executing them not based upon their status as members of 'the enemy', but upon ethnicity or religion, including citizens of their own nation.

As czgibson said, noone is denying that all those other people died, or that the loss of each of them is equally significant. The holocaust seems to have become a special case, and subject to law, because a lot of neo-Nazi and anti-semitic groups use holocaust and zionist conspiracy theories to promote their own agendas.

There's no law against denying that Russia's civilian WWII deaths were well into 8 figures because noone bothers to deny it.

[Sampharo]

I can't believe that anyone (including Ahmadinejad) can see no distinction between:
....

But WW2 civilian casualties was anything BUT bombing "fortified cities" to hit military targets. It is a matter of fact that both sides (yes Germans did that but so did the Allies) carpet-bombed cities deep inside enemy territory simply to reduce the opposite population size and affect their morale! That was one of the main causes for such a high casualty numbers in the civilians.

There's no law against denying that Russia's civilian WWII deaths were well into 8 figures because noone bothers to deny it.

Precisely, which means if someone comes and wants to research into the causes and claim reductions or increases, nobody would shout "anti-russianism" and twist faces over the horrific disgusting crime of trying to calculate the numbers accurately. So you do agree that it is nonsensical to single out one genocide and provide it with moral apprehension at whomever writes that "someone thought there was something fishy with the numbers" while not others?

If you don't want me to repeat what you've said, then stop making the claim:
.....
Now can you see why it's so important to write clearly when discussing topics like this?

Like I said, if you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation... You seem to be the only one failing to follow the topic, or maybe wanting to waste people's time and take on a tangent with your strange attitude to this thread. We're not asking you to declare you believe in God, so if you want someone to prove to you holocaust law persecutes research into contradiction, just wait on the side till someone who cares indulges you rather than disrupting the thread with out-of-context quotes to complain about how you misunderstood things.

[Eliphaz]

Comparing the Jewish Holocaust to say, Darfur or the Gaza genocides is problematic, not least because of the huge discrepancy between the scales, but also the nature in which each was carried out and the period of time over which each occurred.

Gaza is happening over decades, Darfur is less classifiable as a government sponsored genocide, due to being at the hands of militias who cannot be easily linked to the Sudanese government despite the obviousness of it.

The Holocaust was an explicitly state-sponsored affair (unlike Darfur) and was on a scale much beyond Gaza. There simply is nothing like it in modern history. I believe that there are at least 10 EU countries which have illegalised Holocaust-denying, which I would say flies in the face of freedom of speech more than anything. As far as Austria is concerned:

"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 [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.]"

Source

[JaffaCake]

But WW2 civilian casualties was anything BUT bombing "fortified cities" to hit military targets. It is a matter of fact that both sides (yes Germans did that but so did the Allies) carpet-bombed cities deep inside enemy territory simply to reduce the opposite population size and affect their morale!

I think it's fair to say it's at least a combination of the two. Industry is as much a military target in wartime as are airfields. You're still missing the point though, even bombing enemy towns simply to kill civilians and incite fear is not the same as taking your own citizens and putting them to the wall because they're a particular race.

So you do agree that it is nonsensical to single out one genocide and provide it with moral apprehension at whomever writes that "someone thought there was something fishy with the numbers" while not others?

No I don't agree, read my post again. There is plenty of debate and disagreement about Russian casualties in WWII, and no law against denying it because there is no need for one. No right-wing fruitcakes are using denial of it to further their own devious political or social agenda.

[GuestFellow]

The truth is research in this area is perfectly legal, even if it modifies previous understanding of the Holocaust. Obviously, modifying (and hopefully improving on) previous understanding is one of the primary aims of all research. Researchers do tend to get into trouble, however, if it becomes obvious that their research is working towards a denial agenda, which invariably necessitates manipulation or distortion of facts or data. An objective historian has nothing to fear.

Well we do not know if the research is working towards denial agenda until it is completed. Once the research is completed and the findings are published, then it would give us a clear picture whether or not it was working towards manipulating or distorting historical facts. We do need to give flexibility to researchers. They should be able to analyse the Holocaust from different perspectives.

I wonder where people got the idea that to research the Holocaust was illegal. I thought it was illegal too but I'm not entirely sure where I even got that idea from O_o

[Musaafirah]

Right, what I'm trying to get my head round is; yes the denying of the holocaust is illegal in some EU countries, but where does it say that it's illegal to research material which deny the holocaust?
What purposes would one have though for researching such material?
To understand the mindset?
To see whether such behaviour can be prevented?

[GuestFellow]

What purposes would one have though for researching such material?
To understand the mindset?
To see whether such behaviour can be prevented?

Well there have been studies based on what you just said. There was a psychological study conducted by Milgram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It was looking at authority and obedience.

[Uthman]

It was looking at authority and obedience.

It was also the subject of a very boring and difficult AS Psychology exam which I had the great misfortune of sitting.

Tip: Don't take Psychology at A Level.

[GuestFellow]

It was also the subject of a very boring and difficult AS Psychology exam which I had the great misfortune of sitting.

Tip: Don't take Psychology at A Level.

:sl:

Freud Theory was hilarious... ;D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You seem to be the only one failing to follow the topic, or maybe wanting to waste people's time and take on a tangent with your strange attitude to this thread.

Actually, I think the rest of us are pretty much in agreement here...

Good luck. :)

Peace

[GuestFellow]

I think it is pretty much safe to conclude that no one stops you from researching the Holocaust. If the research is intended for malicious purpose to corrupt facts that can lead to Holocaust denial, then it would be a criminal offense. I'm not fond of any individual who tries to deceive the public and distort historical facts.

[Sampharo]

Well we do not know if the research is working towards denial agenda until it is completed. Once the research is completed and the findings are published, then it would give us a clear picture whether or not it was working towards manipulating or distorting historical facts. We do need to give flexibility to researchers. They should be able to analyse the Holocaust from different perspectives.

That is precisely the problematic point behind it. A person will be guilty of violating the law of denial of the holocaust, and that is considered done if he publishes any work that "downplays" or calls into question an aspect or scope of the holocaust. So basically the research is banned and is considered a violation the moment it is published and it contains material addressing any issues or quoting any theories classified as "revisionist".

I think it's fair to say it's at least a combination of the two. Industry is as much a military target in wartime as are airfields. You're still missing the point though, even bombing enemy towns simply to kill civilians and incite fear is not the same as taking your own citizens and putting them to the wall because they're a particular race.
...
No I don't agree, read my post again. There is plenty of debate and disagreement about Russian casualties in WWII, and no law against denying it because there is no need for one. No right-wing fruitcakes are using denial of it to further their own devious political or social agenda.

So basically just because people are doubting something, you believe it should be protected from that doubt and any attempt at exploring the problems since it's sensetive? You also apply such a moral co-efficient to the affirmation/doubt matter without regard to substance?

It is contradicting to say once the denial is morally wrong because it disrespects 6 million deaths, and then say no moral conundram in affirming and condoning the colonization of dozens of nations by the French like Hugo there said before.

It is equally contradicting to say it's morally wrong to kill 6 million civilians that Nazis hated, but killing civilians to reduce morale is not morally wrong.

I started this out to measure the moral basis that people get over-the-top indignant whenever they hear someone is doubting the holocaust or wants to research the contradictions that surfaced, and I still can't see it.

[Hugo]

Well we do not know if the research is working towards denial agenda until it is completed. Once the research is completed and the findings are published, then it would give us a clear picture whether or not it was working towards manipulating or distorting historical facts. We do need to give flexibility to researchers. They should be able to analyse the Holocaust from different perspectives.

I wonder where people got the idea that to research the Holocaust was illegal. I thought it was illegal too but I'm not entirely sure where I even got that idea from O_o

This is absolutely wrong.
One cannot do research at all unless you aim at something as it's an absurd idea to just wander around getting bits of data from here there and everywhere hoping to reach a conclusion. Any researcher worth their salt will start with a research question of some kind and then make their methods as clear as possible as well as the thinking style they have adopted so that readers know what they aimed at and can consider whether their methods had appropriateness and integrity.

No researcher of any merit or common sense will set out as a research question to show that the holocaust did not occur because if that were true there would be no evidence for it so nothing to research. None of us are totally unbiased and that is why we need to see what a researcher aimed at and what his methods were.

For example suppose a researcher had a research question about transportation of Jews to concentration camps he might try to answer it by looking at archived footage or photographs and that is acceptable BUT he must explain how he will ensure the samples he uses are valid and he must explain how he will extract data from the footage or photographs and finally he must explain how he will interpret the data and what models or protocols he will use.

If you look at the work of holocaust deniers much of this is missing and often it has been found by later researchers or reviewers that for example they have conveniently omitted large swathes of evidence because one supposes it does not fit their agenda. A good example of a book that deals with this area is Deborah Lipstadt's work called "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and Memory (Penguin)

[GuestFellow]

I disagree. Whether or not the work is absurd does not really matter until it has been made public. Anyone can stop a research and claim it is leading towards holocaust denial. Intention must be taken into a consideration. No one will know that for sure until it is published or made known to the public. How would you know it is leading towards Holocaust denial if it had not been made public or the work is not finished?

[JaffaCake]

Sampharo, it's funny that you accuse others of going off on a tangent, because you seem to have ignored what I am actually saying and created an argument against something else entirely.

So basically just because people are doubting something, you believe it should be protected from that doubt and any attempt at exploring the problems since it's sensetive?

No, I never said that, I never even touched on that and it isn't what I believe.
In the same way that in many countries freedom of speech has limitations related to incitement to violence or other discriminatory hate related areas, there are laws against holocaust denial because it is most often used by racist groups to promote anti-semitism by asserting that the holocaust was some sort of ploy by the Jews to attain power.

Obviously I am talking about denial rather than research.

You also apply such a moral co-efficient to the affirmation/doubt matter without regard to substance?

I haven't mentioned morality once.

The 'moral significance' attached to denial it is not simply because of what happened or the implication that this genocide is somehow more important than others, but because it is has become strongly associated with racist groups who use denial to incite hatred against the Jews.

It is equally contradicting to say it's morally wrong to kill 6 million civilians that Nazis hated, but killing civilians to reduce morale is not morally wrong.

I didn't say that either. See above.

I started this out to measure the moral basis that people get over-the-top indignant whenever they hear someone is doubting the holocaust or wants to research the contradictions that surfaced, and I still can't see it.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with research, there is after all only one truth about any event.

[JaffaCake]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to title this thread:

Holocaust research: historical research or ethical trap?

[sister herb]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

[GuestFellow]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

:sl:

Well this topic was created so we can discuss about researching the Holocaust. We are not discussing about other massacres that have taken place around the world. It has already been established there were many victims other than the Jews who died in World War 2.

[Eliphaz]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to title this thread:

Holocaust research: historical research or ethical trap?

Yes! :hiding:

[Hugo]

I disagree. Whether or not the work is absurd does not really matter until it has been made public. Anyone can stop a research and claim it is leading towards holocaust denial. Intention must be taken into a consideration. No one will know that for sure until it is published or made known to the public. How would you know it is leading towards Holocaust denial if it had not been made public or the work is not finished?

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

[GuestFellow]

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

Fair enough.

[Hugo]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

When you say such things; even though they might be true you are tending to balance one atrocity with another as if that make it all fair and square and what many in this thread are trying to do is highlight the holocaust so we can all see it for the massive and unforgivable atrocity that it was to make us aware that our fellow human beings did it and so we must not soften it - why is aptly summed up by Ralph Venning (1669) “...what is done by anyone would be done by everyone, if God did not restrain some men from it in his power..”. Just for the record I might add.

Europe has been guilty of terrible crime is, but what civilisation has not been? Confining ourselves to the 20th century, the sins of the West are no worse than the crimes and follies of the following so there is no place to hypocritically hide for any of us:

Asia: the rape of Nanking, when Japanese soldiers killed more than 300,000 unarmed civilians; the crimes of Mao, resulting in the deaths of well over 70 million Chinese peacetime; Pol Pot, who caused the the deaths of 1.7 million people - one-fifth of the population in Cambodia; the massacre of more than a million Muslims in East Pakistan now Bangladesh by the Muslims of West Pakistan

Africa: Idi Amin's regime in Uganda, an estimated 300,000 people were killed; the massacres in Rwanda left 800,000 people dead; 1.8 million killed in the Sudan, including at least 300,000 in Darfur;

Middle East: the killing of more than a million Armenians by Turks; the crimes of Sadam Hussein; Hafez Assad's 1982 attack on the Syrian town of Hama, in which, according to the Syrian human rights committee, between 30,000 to 40,000 civilians died or remain missing; the massacre of Palmyra prison in Syria; as many as 2 million people have died since 1979 in Iran because of the policies of the Islamic Republic

Note the above can be found in more detail and with complete references in "Defending the West" ISBN 978 1591 024842

[Muezzin]

The difference is, if some idiot tries to deny that, say, Saddam Hussein was ever responsible for genocide or otherwise gross injustices, he or she is not criminalised, but rather exposed and recognised as the ignorant idiot he or she is.

Similarly, if someone argues that, say, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam never happened or wasn't all that bad, he or she is shown up as the fool he or she is.

The point is, I'm not entirely sure why it is necessary to criminalise people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, or who argue it was extremely exaggerated. In either case they're going against stacks of historical evidence and most likely will make fools of themselves. I can fully understand why the German government might want to criminalise Holocaust deniers/questioners, in order to stem any possible resurgance of Nazi sentiment. The rest of the world, though?

[Hugo]

The difference is, if some idiot tries to deny that, say, Saddam Hussein was ever responsible for genocide or otherwise gross injustices, he or she is not criminalised, but rather exposed and recognised as the ignorant idiot he or she is.

Similarly, if someone argues that, say, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam never happened or wasn't all that bad, he or she is shown up as the fool he or she is.

The point is, I'm not entirely sure why it is necessary to criminalise people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, or who argue it was extremely exaggerated. In either case they're going against stacks of historical evidence and most likely will make fools of themselves. I can fully understand why the German government might want to criminalise Holocaust deniers/questioners, in order to stem any possible resurgance of Nazi sentiment. The rest of the world, though?

The difference perhaps is to deny these things means that YOU have an agenda and a murky one at that - why else would anyone do it? For example, the Turkish massacre in Armenia has repeatedly been hushed up by successive Turkish Governments and any one who challenges it is hounded mercilessly - perhaps now you can see why a law against denial is needed because a stance of denial sets out most definitely to hide the truth.

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

[Muezzin]

The difference perhaps is to deny these things means that YOU have an agenda and a murky one at that - why else would anyone do it?

I agree. But we do not currently criminalise those with ulterior motives, simply for having ulterior motives, unless they're for example actively conspiring to commit murder or are planning to/have defrauded someone.

Illegalising denial of historical tragedies does not stop or discourage these (very stupid and/or malicious) people from having these agendas.

For example, the Turkish massacre in Armenia has repeatedly been hushed up by successive Turkish Governments and any one who challenges it is hounded mercilessly - perhaps now you can see why a law against denial is needed because a stance of denial sets out most definitely to hide the truth.

A law in Turkey, yes. Not the rest of the world, where the truth is plain to see.

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

Obviously the use of Holocaust denial in relation to Israel is to draw support against Israel, who is also misusing the tragedy of the Holocaust in a present conflict where it is irrelevant.

Obviously Holocaust deniers in general are lying or misinformed. Obviously this ignorance is offensive to the survivors or families of victims of the Holocaust. Obviously Holocaust deniers have an agenda.

So, outside Germany, what good will illegalising this taboo actually do? These malicious people will still hold these views, and will twist the intent of this law such that it appears the Powers That Be wish to quash any dissenting opinion. It's happening in Iran, it's happening in Britain under the guise of the BNP.

Illegalising this behaviour, outside Germany, has only strengthened the case of Holocaust deniers to their supporters (of whose number I am decidedly not).

[Raphael]

The Jews have a PR machine to kill for, that's for sure.

[GuestFellow]

T
So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

He never said the Holocaust is a myth...he is saying that the holocaust has been used to justify the occupation of Palestine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

[Sampharo]

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

........

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the failure of the "Holocaust denial" proposition in terms of being a tool of protecting the memory of the genocide, and the fact that it is nothing more than a witch-hunt tool, that the vast majority of those who react so negatively to the term Holocaust denial really do not understand where the negative moral notion comes from.

If anyone in this wide world says "I want to research the way salmons reproduce and find out exactly where they go", the person is told "absolutely, go ahead, and tell us of your impartial findings." Reseach IS for the sake of research, to find out MORE details and more truth, without aforementioned expectations of findings.

"Why else would any woman stand and tell the inquisition to calm down and think clearly before burning those witches, other than her being a witch herself defending her colleagues?!?!" Yes, it sounds THAT familiar.

For you to suggest that intention of any research that says it wants to research the claims of numbers of dead people being overinflated for example HAS to be beforehand declared with a "Are you planning to disprove these claims or affirm them?" question, and hence deciding whether the person is morally righteous or racist bigot, whether the research can be allowed or rejected. Such a suggestion is ludicrous and fundamentally flawed. As a matter of fact... is prejudice in itself.

The difference is like Muezzin said, anyone is still free to dig information and make presentations in the end about Saddam Hussein, the Turkish genocide, or the decline in shrimp population for all we care. If they say there are adjustments to the numbers or contradictions in current information, they will be examined openly and taken into consideration and adopted whether or not they negatively affect the what we know of the event.

Politics and Social sensitivities do not dictate scholarly work. It is the very sanctity of scholars to be given THAT courtesy and no less. Now when someone comes out in the end and says a genocide didn't happen AT ALL or that shrimps speak English and is warning us not to fish them again or else, then they can be laughed off as loons and get their intentions looked into. Scholars do not get criminilized and morally demonized without regard to truth of findings or methods of research simply because of the subject.

Is this the same way you deal with colonialism? That whomever wants to research the so-called positive side of colonialism "must be up to something"? You know what, then count 90% of the World as up to something. The argument is sort of bankrupt considering you're involving research, but it serves my queries nontheless.

No, I never said that, I never even touched on that and it isn't what I believe.
In the same way that in many countries freedom of speech has limitations related to incitement to violence or other discriminatory hate related areas, there are laws against holocaust denial because it is most often used by racist groups to promote anti-semitism by asserting that the holocaust was some sort of ploy by the Jews to attain power.

Obviously I am talking about denial rather than research.

The 'moral significance' attached to denial it is not simply because of what happened or the implication that this genocide is somehow more important than others, but because it is has become strongly associated with racist groups who use denial to incite hatred against the Jews.

Not going to argue about whether or not you said that, but you did say "You're still missing the point though, even bombing enemy towns simply to kill civilians and incite fear is not the same as taking your own citizens and putting them to the wall because they're a particular race." in response to me querying on the implication superiority of the Holocaust, so it was natural to comprehend you're suggesting Holocaust is a bigger deal.

What you mention about the Holocaust denial being criminal because it is strongly associated with racist groups, specifically for clarifying you're referring to denial only, is quite logical to me, but as I told Hugo, that is still prejudice in itself. It is the same as saying the beard is associated with muslim men and therefore a terrorist, and is the same as associating athiesm with lack of ethics, or any other association that just reeks of... prejudice. It reverses the standing "innocent till proven guilty" and turns the concept into "being racist and prejudiced to fight racism".

I understand this a lot better though, so thanks anyway.

[JaffaCake]

so it was natural to comprehend you're suggesting Holocaust is a bigger deal.

Maybe, but only if you assume that "not the same as" means "less important than".

Holocaust denial being criminal because it is strongly associated with racist groups.. ..that is still prejudice in itself. It reverses the standing "innocent till proven guilty" and turns the concept into "being racist and prejudiced to fight racism".

Don't get me wrong on this, I understand where you're coming from completely. It seems weird to single out this one event when there are a thousand other tragedies. In an ideal world laws would entrust everyone with the maximum amount of freedom possible, fairly covering all situations which need rules, and not covering those which don't.

We don't live in that ideal world, and lawmakers sometimes have to create rules which restrict people's rights in order to address a real problem.
Why can't I buy a handgun to shoot vermin, or wear a balaclava in the bank if it's cold? I can't even send a 16 year old out to buy cutlery in the UK.

Yes, the law seems to be applied unevenly, but that's because a lot of people have given governments a reason to do so.

Just going back to the links you provided, David Irving isn't really a great example. He denied that the Nazi's killed all those Jews and then said he hadn't even bothered to look at the bulk of the evidence, stating at the end: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust.". I don't think his cause would be included in 'genuine research' even by his own admission.

[Muezzin]

Holocaust denial laws are stupid and childish, but not nearly as stupid and childish as those who deny the Holocaust.

Missed this post earlier. I agree with it.