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

Same way if someone says: that guy violated his own daughter!!... normal response "OH MY GOD ". 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 ". (Strangely enough, saying you don't think God is real, produces a miserly "So? "

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

[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