If Irving is recanting his previous statements in order to avoid a lengthy prison sentencem, I find this article very sad. Thumbscrews applied, now he sees the light.
That said, Austria seems to be representative of most countries in Europe where speech seems to fall more under state jurisdiction. The recent narrow defeat in Britain of its anti-terrorism bill is one example. Germany's supression of Mein Kampf and other Nazi related speech is another.
In previous discussions on this forum around speech, some people have supported the idea that some speech is just too dangerous to allow. I think this is why many of the governments in Europe have curtailed speech freedoms. Falling somewhat under the crying fire in a movie theater rule, I believe the thought is that pushing for violence against a person or group should never be allowed. Further, anything that paints a person or group in such a light as to promote violence against them should not be allowed.
The interesting thing about Irving's judgement is that, just based on the few articles I've read online about this, he isn't promoting violence or hatred against the Jews. He's 'only' saying that the holocaust wasn't as bad as some (most) say it was, and that Hitler might not have known about the systematic murder of the Jews.
The Jewish holocaust was terrible, in my opinion, but I think laws that force people believe in something, or make it illegal to discuss something, are growing off the same tree as the Nazis, and Austria should be ashamed.
posted
I disagree. I think that they have EVERY right to pass their own laws regarding issues like think, and considering their history I think that what happened was completely justified.
It wouldn't happen here in the US, and I am glad, but ever here there are things you are barred from saying.
He knew what he was saying was inflammatory when he said it, and Austria has nothing to be ashamed of at all. They are trying to prevent others from doing the same sort of damage Hitler did, and refusing to allow others to diminish the deaths of millions.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I would go so far as to say they have the 'right' to curtail speech so much as how is anyone going to stop them. You can't fight city hall.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you really believe what you're saying, or are you playing devil's advocate?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe the thought is that pushing for violence against a person or group should never be allowed.
Taken to it's literal extreme, this would render governments powerless. They woulnd't be able to collect taxes, because they couldn't force people to pay. To get out of jail, all you'd have to do is decline to go, because violence against you is never allowed.
Of course, that's not what you meant, I'm sure.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to paraphrase the argument for laws against that kind of speech that others used, mph. Taken in the context of the whole paragraph, I hope it's clear that I'm not advocating it, but addressing the general thought behind many of these hate speech laws. So, you're absolutely right, that's not what I meant.
The fault, of course, lies with me for using 'never'. I should probably have used something like 'be very suspect'? or something to that effect rather than 'never be allowed'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Kwea on this one. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of censorship of free speech at this level, but I'm not willing to say a different society is obviously wrong because they put different priorities on something like this.
Nazism is bad. They are taking steps to prevent it's taking root in their society and are putting a higher priority on that then what I would value. I'm not going to then say that this comes from the same place as Nazis, especially as I know quite a bit about where things like Nazism comes from.
I remember a conversation a little while back wherein people where mocking Great Britian because they were debating banning long pointed kitchen knives and I'm thinking "Yeah, Great Britian puts a high value on keeping dangerous weapons away from people who may use them. So, for example, their murder rate is much, much lower than ours. I don't know that this is necessarily something to mock."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This particular law was put in place in 1947. I'm certainly not going to argue that it was unjustified in that climate. Whether it should have been repealed a few decades later is a different question, though.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly they have the right to pass their own laws, and insofar as they do so through a legitimate democratic process their rights are the same as ours, ultimately.
But as far as Europe's (well, generally) approach to Nazism, I'm frankly uncomfortable with it for two reasons. One, I'm uncomfortable with any government decree that says I cannot espouse a political belief short of exhorting people to murder another individual or group. It is possible to espouse Nazism without specifically espousing the murder of dissidents, just as it's possible to praise a Chinese system of government without specifically advocating the beating of dissidents.
But the second and to me more important reason is that it seems like...denial. Which may sound strange, because I know they teach WWII in Europe, obviously, and Nazism is justly reviled and ridiculed. But if an individual took this approach to dealing with his troubled past, I would regard it as worrisome, because it makes me wonder if there's a part of him that's doubting his current stance is the correct one, and so ruthlessly squashes any voice that says otherwise.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the essential essence of a totalitarian government is that there is only one truth, only one right way of belief.
What is Irving's crime? He believes differently than what the state says he or anyone else can believe on a certain topic.
If you believe that it is within the state's purview to force a belief on its citizenry, then I don't know what to say.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He shoulda just drawn a cartoon of Mohammed: coulda kicked up just as much stink, played just as dumb, without facing prison.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I talked to a German coworker once about German's past with WWII and Nazism. He thought that people should just let it be and stop talking about it. It was as if he believed that if nobody talks about it, it will never have happened. Franky, that attutde scared me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One little problem with your theory there, Storm. Europe is not exactly rife with totalitarian governments.
Also, they are not anywhere near dictating the one right way to think or believe. They are saying these specific things are so dangerous/distasteful/false that we have decided they have no place in our society. I think making it out that they have thought police who go around making sure everyone only believes in the party line is reaching just a little bit too far there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are trying to prevent others from doing the same sort of damage Hitler did, and refusing to allow others to diminish the deaths of millions.
I don't quite understand how banning this subject from public discourse accomplishes this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't quite understand how they banned this subject from public discourse. Is there some part of this that I'm not seeing that says that you can't discuss the Holocaust or Nazis?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean that anybody has banned talking about it. I just said that my coworker thought that people should stop talking about it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, are you saying that putting someone in jail for their book promoting a certain viewpoint doesn't equate to not allowing people to discuss that viewpoint?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This particular law was put in place in 1947. I'm certainly not going to argue that it was unjustified in that climate. Whether it should have been repealed a few decades later is a different question, though.
quote:Certainly they have the right to pass their own laws, and insofar as they do so through a legitimate democratic process their rights are the same as ours, ultimately.
Both of these quotes seem to be missing something : To wit, that law was dictated by the occupying authorities; basically, the Americans.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squicky, are you saying that putting someone in jail for their book promoting a certain viewpoint doesn't equate to not allowing people to discuss that viewpoint?
No, I said nothing about discussing that viewpoint. I said I wasn't aware that they were not allowing people to discuss the Holocaust or Nazis. I actually thought that was pretty clear.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even assuming that's true, KoM, I don't see what difference this makes. A) They have half a century of not getting rid of this law and B) If the idea of this law is a good or bad one, it's still good or bad when it's the fault of 1947 America.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a bit disingenuous though. The original law may have been written by the occupying authorities, but Austria has had a couple years now, at least one or two, where they weren't under the direct control of the occupying forces in which to repudiate this law if they so desired.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Even assuming that's true, KoM, I don't see what difference this makes. A) They have half a century of not getting rid of this law and B) If the idea of this law is a good or bad one, it's still good or bad when it's the fault of 1947 America.
Do you think the law was a good thing or bad thing when it was passed? Does your opinion change with the passage of time from the end of WWII? If so, at what point does that happen?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't quite understand how they banned this subject from public discourse. Is there some part of this that I'm not seeing that says that you can't discuss the Holocaust or Nazis?
In Iraq, when Saddam was in power, there was democracy, and everyone could vote, but Saddam was the only candidate, and thus always enjoyed 100% of the vote. So sure, there was democracy, but other candidates were executed or jailed.
I don't really have an opinion on this subject. So far as I'm concerned, it's a European issue, and they are free to decide how to handle it however they want. However, to say that discussion of this subject is all free and clear is a bit dishonest when there is obvious limitations placed on the public debate of the subject, or for that matter, since public "debate" itself is more or less against the law.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general think it's a really bad idea to dictate which views are acceptable and which ones aren't. While there are exceptions I could approve (advocating violence and advocating the overthrow of the government are possible ones), I don't see anything in this situation to cause it to be an exception.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again with the hyperbole. I never said that discussion was free and clear. There are limits placed on it, but as the statement I was taking issue with was saying that they, the issues themselves, were banned from public discourse, I don't think that's all that revelant.
But, for that matter, placing some limits on certain potential aspects of the debate is not equivilent to making debate illegal. You can't deny the Holocaust in Austria. To be honest, I don't see that as a significant obstacle to productive debate.
And again, it's a matter of priorities. They put a higher priority on preventing the resurgence of Nazism than on allowing the hypothetical debate that includes denying the Holocaust. In final analysis, I'm not willing to say that's obviously wrong.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Again with the hyperbole. I never said that discussion was free and clear. There are limits placed on it, but as the statement I was taking issue with was saying that they, the issues themselves, were banned from public discourse, I don't think that's all that revelant.
But, for that matter, placing some limits on certain potential aspects of the debate is not equivilent to making debate illegal. You can't deny the Holocaust in Austria. To be honest, I don't see that as a significant obstacle to productive debate.
And again, it's a matter of priorities. They put a higher priority on preventing the resurgence of Nazism than on allowing the hypothetical debate that includes denying the Holocaust. In final analysis, I'm not willing to say that's obviously wrong.
I must be missing something then. What about the holocaust is being debated?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is actually being debated? I don't know. Not actually part of it.
What is open for debate? Seems like most things other than its existence and likely whether or not it was a good thing. Relevant to this conversation, you could talk about how it came about or how people on all sides of it reacted to the situation or how to go about preventing another one.
I'm wondering, would you actually engage someone who held that the Holocaust didn't happen in debate and expect anything productive to come about, especially vis-a-vis preventing other Holocausts? I mean, I don't see this circumscription as being the intrinsic killer of all debate that you seem to, so I'm wondering if you could explain how that happens.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't deny the Holocaust in Austria. To be honest, I don't see that as a significant obstacle to productive debate.
Let's suppose that it became illegal to deny the divine appointment of Our Benevolent Steward George W. Bush. I think we can all agree that somewhat silly situation this would be a horrible, evil thing.
So, Squicky and Twinky, what makes one bad and the other acceptable? Is how true the statement is (i.e., the Holocaust did happen, but W. has not had a divine apoinment)? If truth is the issue, how do we decide which truths have been decided enough to outlaw disagreement?
Or is the difference the purpose behind it? Is this a "ends justify the means" situation? Is there any conceivable tragedy that is so horrible that avoiding it could justify forcing people to accept W as Our Benevolent Steward?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What is actually being debated? I don't know. Not actually part of it.
What is open for debate? Seems like most things other than its existence and likely whether or not it was a good thing. Relevant to this conversation, you could talk about how it came about or how people on all sides of it reacted to the situation or how to go about preventing another one.
I'm wondering, would you actually engage someone who held that the Holocaust didn't happen in debate and expect anything productive to come about, especially vis-a-vis preventing other Holocausts? I mean, I don't see this circumscription as being the intrinsic killer of all debate that you seem to, so I'm wondering if you could explain how that happens.
I really don't know what's being debated either, I'm not over there debating it. And there'd probably be no point in debating a holocaust denier. Given the evidence, if they still deny it after seeing it all, I can't imagine a spirited debate would do anything other than waste oxygen.
But without knowing really what the public discourse even is, I guess I can't say one way or the other what the effect this piece of puzzle's removal will have on the overall debate. But then neither can you. I don't necessarily contend that it kills the debate entirely, but it really depends on what is being debated doesn't it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me answer that question with a question in the same vein. Why isn't it okay to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theater?
I subscribe to the idea that a bill of rights is not a suicide pact. I don't believe that any rights, even the right to free speech, automatically trumps all other concerns. I personally am not confortable with the restriction on free speech here, but, as I've been saying, the Austrians have different priorities than I do. They are placing higher priority on preventing the resurgence of Nazism (and I'm going to get tired of typing that pretty soon). I can't look at that and say that they are obviously wrong, even if it's not what I would do. Nor do I see this prohibition as directly detrimental to discussion and debate of the Holocaust the way most other people here seem to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell from what you just said what your answers to my questions are, so I'll have to guess. My guesses are:
No, whether or not there might be any truth in what isn't allowed to be said doesn't really matter.
Yes, it's a pragmatic "ends justify the means" situation, and as long as what is being denied is not as bad as the risk of what could happen otherwise, it's justifiable.
Am I right or am I wrong?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But without knowing really what the public discourse even is, I guess I can't say one way or the other what the effect this piece of puzzle's removal will have on the overall debate. But then neither can you. I don't necessarily contend that it kills the debate entirely, but it really depends on what is being debated doesn't it?
All, the old appeal to ignorance. (By the way, I'm assuming you're abandoning your earlier assertion that this must make debate impossible.)
Here's the thing, your appeal here is fallacious. While I don't know the specifics of the debates going on (or, more relevantly, the potential debates that could occur if this ban were not in place), I do know quite a bit about the history and current culture as well as about the nature of debate. That I (and you for that matter) can't imagine that this would adversely affect any productive debate doesn't make it neceassrily so, but it does move the slider away from the default "it could go either way" position. In the same way that it's not a 50% chance that the planet Venus is populated entirely by three footed purple dogs all named Earl, there is not a 50% chance that removing the ban on denying the Holocaust will open up whole new vistas in productive debate. We can actually make statements concerning things we don't have total knowledge of.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You ask that as if it were a foregone conclusion that the person who denied the holocaust would refuse to listen to what the other person had to say, Squicky, but I'm not sure that that's a certainty. Any debate forces each person to put up or shut up.
Debating something like the holocaust would force me to learn more about history to make sure that what I believe is true. It would help me to understand where the other person was coming from, and why they believed what they believed. In future conversations with that person and others who believed as she did, I would thus be better able to argue the truth.
You seem to imply that only people who willfully decieve themselves could argue against something as obvious as the holocaust, yet isn't this, then, reason to not support laws forbidding books which deny the holocaust? After all, if it's obvious, it should be fairly trivial to dismiss their 'facts'.
I think the rationale that you give for not allowing books like Irving's that deny the holocaust is flawed. You say that the state supressing books like Irving's will help keep the Nazis from resurging, yet I don't think this is true. I think it is what people believe that will keep something like the nazis from resurging. Making a point of view illegal is just making it so that people who believe in that point of view don't debate it and have their bs exposed for what it is--bs. It allows them to take on the mantle of a picked-on minority. It allows them to say that the state is afraid of their truth, because after all, if what they are saying is wrong, then why make it illegal, because surely if it is wrong, it can be shown to be wrong.
The answer to lies is truth, not jail sentences, which accomplish nothing.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: but, as I've been saying, the Austrians have different priorities than I do. They are placing higher priority on preventing the resurgence of Nazism (and I'm going to get tired of typing that pretty soon). I can't look at that and say that they are obviously wrong, even if it's not what I would do. Nor do I see this prohibition as directly detrimental to discussion and debate of the Holocaust the way most other people here seem to.
I agree, I think, on that basic idea there. As I said before, it's Europe's issue, and I don't really have an opinion on this specific case. If they really find it a good trade off, then they can do whatever they want, it's their continent, and Austria specifically, it's their country.
I wonder, what the real concern is for the rise of nazism is in 21st century Europe, but I'd hope they know the situation better than I do, and know what the real danger is of that happening.
I think there's a sizeable difference between yelling "fire" and "no holocaust" but that difference doesn't really matter for the point of this discussion.
Edit to add: If there's more to cover, I'll hit it later, I'm already late for work.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, Based on all I know about how people form and hold beliefs, I don't agree with nearly anything you said. What you're saying and the faith you put in people's rationality seems extremely naive to me.
America doesn't have any of these limits on denying the Holocaust. How's that working out for us, neo-nazi and holocaust denial-wise?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I never said that there wasn't a difference between yelling fire and denying the Holocaust. However, I think that the rationale for banning the one might illuminate how some people would support banning the other.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They put a higher priority on preventing the resurgence of Nazism than on allowing the hypothetical debate that includes denying the Holocaust.
It occurs to me that there's very little evidence out there showing that disbelieving in the Holocaust causes Nazism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Yes, but a community that holds ideas such as the Holocaust never happened does contribute to a growth of Nazism. It's not so much about the belief itself, but rather it being treated seriously and/or allowing groups that hold this belief to exist, draw in members, and spread their beliefs. While the focus of this thread is on the Holocaust denial, I'm pretty sure that the laws actually target a whole complex of beliefs.
Also, could you explain to me your earlier contention that Nazism and the Holocaust were banned from public discourse? I don't see how that is the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you can show that. The formation and growth of groups in both the abstract and concrete is understood to an extent such that this is not an unreasonable belief.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dispute this, Squicky. I fail to see a causal relationship between disbelieving the Holocaust and becoming a neo-Nazi.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not mean to imply that it was a good law; I merely meant to throw all the blame on those gosh-darned Americans. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So, Squicky and Twinky, what makes one bad and the other acceptable?
Just to be clear, I haven't said that I think the other is acceptable. I support Canada's hate speech laws, but those are significantly different from this Austrian law.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not familiar with Irving's writings. Is he just bald-faced asserting that millions of Jews were NOT killed by Germans in concentration camps? Or is he saying something different. The article seemed to imply that he was claiming people died of disease, malnutrition and other factors in greater numbers than in the gas chambers.
I've never actually seen "official" figures for causes of death in the camps. But it would seem to me that the material fact is that whether they did it with gas or starving them or with bullets, the Germans (and their collaborators) were responsible for those deaths.
So...what's he actually claiming that gets him in so much trouble?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
