Holocaust Laws

fran17

On the 03/01/2018 Monika Schaefer,a Canadian national,was arrested in Munich Germany while observing at the trial of another lady regarding Holocaust laws in Germany.The proceedings were halted and Ms.Schaefer was handcuffed and led away.Since then she has been detained in Stadelheim prison in Munich.Her crime was the posting of the following video online while residing in Canada:

There is some 16 European countries which have enacted Holocaust laws and also Israel.Does the Irish state have provisions for such laws or what would be its equivalent in relation to prisoners of conscience?

Arcade_Tryer

fran17 wrote: »

There is some 16 European countries which have enacted Holocaust laws and also Israel.Does the Irish state have provisions for such laws or what would be its equivalent in relation to prisoners of conscience?

Hopefully not.

fran17

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Hopefully not.

I would indeed second that.The Holocaust is quite unique in law in that it is the only historical event which can be responsible for your imprisonment if you deviate from or question the official narrative.

Samuel T. Cogley

Does the State have provision for such laws - yes it does. The right to free speech is governed by Art 40.6. This is subject to a public morality clause. There's a good essay here if you want a much better analysis than I can give.

Do we have a specific law though - not that I'm aware of - although wasn't there talk recently of bringing one in?

Manach

fran17 wrote: »

I would indeed second that.The Holocaust is quite unique in law in that it is the only historical event which can be responsible for your imprisonment if you deviate from or question the official narrative.

Actually the Turkey as an equivalent law that makes it an offence to affirm that there was an Armenian genocide. The use of legal means to fix a historical record is an incorrect use of state power given the mass of primary source evidence that certain events (eg The Holocaust ) had occurred which can be used to present arguments.

Arcade_Tryer

fran17 wrote: »

I would indeed second that.The Holocaust is quite unique in law in that it is the only historical event which can be responsible for your imprisonment if you deviate from or question the official narrative.

Also one of the most ironic laws in existence in that it reflects or replicates even the anti-liberal, anti-democratic ideals of the very event or system it is made in respect of.

fran17

Manach wrote: »

Actually the Turkey as an equivalent law that makes it an offence to affirm that there was an Armenian genocide. The use of legal means to fix a historical record is an incorrect use of state power given the mass of primary source evidence that certain events (eg The Holocaust ) had occurred which can be used to present arguments.

Maybe ironically,Poland has ruffled some feathers recently by proposing enacting law which would make it an offence to insinuate or claim that Polish citizens were in any way responsible for or facilitated the Holocaust.

GritBiscuit

Ireland has constitutionally protected free speech but that is not absolute and curtailment in the name of morality, public order, etc could certainly be invoked...if there was a similar situation here whereby a small group of people in Ireland were very vocally denying the famine for instance or pushing an alternative theory of mass suicide by starvation in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I'd imagine the State may well intervene...I'd hope not by the introduction of laws but by getting them the mental health treatment they obviously require.

Manach

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'd imagine the State may well intervene...I'd hope not by the introduction of laws but by getting them the mental health treatment they obviously require.

Rather like how the Soviets dealt with dissidents then.

GritBiscuit

Manach wrote: »

Rather like how the Soviets dealt with dissidents then.

Incontrovertible fact =/= official party line

Arcade_Tryer

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Ireland has constitutionally protected free speech but that is not absolute and curtailment in the name of morality, public order, etc could certainly be invoked...if there was a similar situation here whereby a small group of people in Ireland were very vocally denying the famine for instance or pushing an alternative theory of mass suicide by starvation in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary

You do realise evidence does not matter when the state starts institutionalising or imprisoning people for sayings things others don't agree with?

I'd imagine the State may well intervene...I'd hope not by the introduction of laws but by getting them the mental health treatment they obviously require.

Indeed, it certainly worked for women who had children outside of marriage in the past.

GritBiscuit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

You do realise evidence does not matter when the state starts institutionalising or imprisoning people for sayings things others don't agree with?

Why would evidence not matter? Presumably the burden of proof for a criminal case relating to hate crimes is no different to any other criminal case?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Indeed, it certainly worked for women who had children outside of marriage in the past.

I'm not following the correlation between pregnancy out of wedlock and holocaust deniers preaching anti-Semitism, however passively-aggressively they try to dress it up.

Free speech does not exist in the real world - while this may hamper the ethereal vision of a "true democracy", it furthers a democratic society that doesn't want to hear hate speech, or about how women are asking to be raped, or how sexy children are, or whatever other crazy is out there. Just because someone has the power of speech and access to the internet doesn't automatically equate to an inherent freedom of expression - or that their verbalisations aren't seated in blind hatred to the detriment of their sanity, for that matter.

Arcade_Tryer

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Why would evidence not matter? Presumably the burden of proof for a criminal case relating to hate crimes is no different to any other criminal case?

Why would it matter? Once the state decides it can imprison someone for saying something it doesn't agree with, evidence is a long way down the list of things that matter.

I'm not following the correlation between pregnancy out of wedlock and holocaust deniers preaching anti-Semitism, however passively-aggressively they try to dress it up.

But there was evidence at the time to say that it was the correct thing to do i.e. lock up women who had children outside of wedlock. Evidence does not matter.

Free speech does not exist in the real world - while this may hamper the ethereal vision of a "true democracy", it furthers a democratic society that doesn't want to hear hate speech, or about how women are asking to be raped, or how sexy children are, or whatever other crazy is out there. Just because someone has the power of speech and access to the internet doesn't automatically equate to an inherent freedom of expression - or that their verbalisations aren't seated in blind hatred to the detriment of their sanity, for that matter.

Society would sooner be better off banning incomprehensible word jumble such as the above rather than the right of some silly people to say the holocaust did not exist.

Gatling

I'd imagine we would get lets not discuss the laundries , mother and baby homes and historical sex abuse at the hands of the church or face prison.

But we certainly don't need any holocaust specific laws

ohnonotgmail

Manach wrote: »

Actually the Turkey as an equivalent law that makes it an offence to affirm that there was an Armenian genocide. The use of legal means to fix a historical record is an incorrect use of state power given the mass of primary source evidence that certain events (eg The Holocaust ) had occurred which can be used to present arguments.

Holocaust deniers are not interested in arguments or evidence. Best to nip their hate speech in the bud.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Holocaust deniers are not interested in arguments or evidence. Best to nip their hate speech in the bud.

It would seem by the very nature of these laws that those who rule have very little interest in debate either.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

It would seem by the very nature of these laws that those who rule have very little interest in debate either.

what is there to debate? It happened. The people denying it are far right anti-semites. They are only concerned with spreading hate.

GritBiscuit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Why would it matter? Once the state decides it can imprison someone for saying something it doesn't agree with, evidence is a long way down the list of things that matter.

So going with the "slippery slope fallacy" rather than acknowledging that holocaust deniers are primarily driven by an irrational hatred of Jewish people and hate speech isn't something that a democratic nation gives platform to?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

But there was evidence at the time to say that it was the correct thing to do i.e. lock up women who had children outside of wedlock. Evidence does not matter.

No. You had the church with far too much control over state and people going along with that - I have no idea why. I certainly could never see myself driving my daughter to one of the these institutions clutching at my pearls and caring more about what the neighbours think than my own flesh and blood - but there you have it. A historical disregard for single mothers based on some overly moralistic silliness does not make anti-Semitism okay or mean a soap-box for such sentiments should be provided.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Society would sooner be better off banning incomprehensible word jumble such as the above rather than the right of some silly people to say the holocaust did not exist.

I appreciate you don't understand my point - I also appreciate that isn't the same as it being incomprehensible...

Victor

Gatling wrote: »

I'd imagine we would get lets not discuss the laundries , mother and baby homes and historical sex abuse at the hands of the church or face prison.

Rather, that one could not dent the existence of the laundries.

Peregrinus

Free speech is important, but it's not the only important thing, and all countries balance free speech against other important things, which can give rise to compromises and limits and qualifications.

Countries that experienced nazism have a particular (and painful) historical experience that has lead them to compromise free speech in ways that we don't. (The answer to the OP's question, does Ireland have holocaust denial laws?, is "no".) We don't because we didn't go through what they went through.

Depending on exactly what was said, I suppose, denial of the Holocaust could infringe the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 - for example, if you not only denied that the Holocaust had occurred, but also said that the whole thing was a blood libel against white Christians invented and circulated by a sinister Jewish cabal bent on world domination and active in Ireland today. But I'm not aware of any prosecution on any facts like that. The truth is that there have been very few prosecutions under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act.

The OP asks a second question: "what would be its equivalent in relation to prisoners of conscience?" I don't understand the question, I'm afraid.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is there to debate? It happened. The people denying it are far right anti-semites. They are only concerned with spreading hate.

Obviously I'm not questioning the validity of this historical event,people have dedicated their whole lives to the research of it.
A large plaque existed in Auschwitz until 1990 which stated that 4 million Jewish people perished there during the Nazi era,this figure has since been revised to approximately 1.5 million.My point being that historical events are constantly being revisited,subjected to scrutiny and revised,except when the distinct possibility of a custodial sentence impedes it.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Obviously I'm not questioning the validity of this historical event,people have dedicated their whole lives to the research of it.
A large plaque existed in Auschwitz until 1990 which stated that 4 million Jewish people perished there during the Nazi era,this figure has since been revised to approximately 1.5 million.My point being that historical events are constantly being revisited,subjected to scrutiny and revised,except when the distinct possibility of a custodial sentence impedes it.

Can you give me an example of somebody engaged in genuine historical research who has been charged with such a crime?

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Holocaust deniers are not interested in arguments or evidence. Best to nip their hate speech in the bud.

If they are not allowed to speak, their arguments cannot be refuted.

Take the example of David Irving, one of the better known holocaust deniers. His sources have been checked and found wanting.

Better that he was discredited on the merits of what he had to say than to stifle what he had to say and to allow to him claim legitimacy, unchallenged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_responses_to_David_Irving

ohnonotgmail

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If they are not allowed to speak, their arguments cannot be refuted.

Take the example of David Irving, one of the better known holocaust deniers. His sources have been checked and found wanting.

Better that he was discredited on the merits of what he had to say than to stifle what he had to say and to allow to him claim legitimacy, unchallenged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_responses_to_David_Irving

I'm very familiar with Irving. The problem with irving was not necessarily with his sources but with the conclusions he drew from them. Conclusions coloured by his anti-semitism. He is now banned from both Germany and Austria. Why would a country want somebody like him spreading hate? why would any country?

Pat Mustard

First, I think that it should be sufficient to show Irving to be wrong rather than ban him from speaking. Nobody is forced to listen to him, after all.

Secondly, I would suggest that censorship should be avoided in a modern democracy/constitutional republic such as Ireland.

As regards Irving being banned from Germany, Germany is a country with a shaky historical record in relation to human rights. I wonder if that ban is not motivated by a feeling of collective guilt for historical crimes, rather than by any current sense of fair play.

ohnonotgmail

Pat Mustard wrote: »

First, I think that it should be sufficient to show Irving to be wrong rather than ban him from speaking. Nobody is forced to listen to him, after all.

But people do listen to him. all he does is engender hate. nothing else.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Secondly, I would suggest that censorship should be avoided in a modern democracy/constitutional republic such as Ireland.

As regards Irving being banned from Germany, Germany is a country with a shaky historical record in relation to human rights. I wonder if that ban is not motivated by a feeling of collective guilt for historical crimes, rather than by any current sense of fair play.

Is a third option not possible? That they dont want to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But people do listen to him. all he does is engender hate. nothing else.

If he had the intention of stirring up hatred, then he could be arrested under s.10 of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act and prosecuted under s.2 of same. So he would have to avoid doing that if he came to speak in this country.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is a third option not possible? That they dont want to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Perhaps that was the motivation. In my opinion, it was a disproportionate response.

Grolschevik

It's one of the most awkward issues in contemporary liberal political theory: how liberalism can deal with the toleration of illiberal ideas.

Pat Mustard

Grolschevik wrote: »

It's one of the most awkward issues in contemporary liberal political theory: how liberalism can deal with the toleration of illiberal ideas.

Of itself, is holocaust denial an illiberal idea? Can it be regarded as spurious argument without an illiberal or hateful aspect?

ohnonotgmail

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Of itself, is holocaust denial an illiberal idea? Can it be regarded as spurious argument without an illiberal or hateful aspect?

to my mind it cant. The argument would not exist without anti-semitism.

Grolschevik

Pat Mustard wrote:

Of itself, is holocaust denial an illiberal idea? Can it be regarded as spurious argument without an illiberal or hateful aspect?

Not necessarily, I think, in just logical terms. However, in practice it tends to be clustered with Illiberal ideas.

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to my mind it cant. The argument would not exist without anti-semitism.

There are a number of historical writers who write statements which are incorrect. These authors see themselves as devils' advocates and they write 'alternative histories', which are spurious at best. These people are not banned or shut down. However, it appears that if the label of anti-semitism is ascribed to an idea, then we are expected to accept that it should be shut down, with no room for dissenting opinion as to whether or not the idea may be expressed. This appears like another type of intolerance to me.

I see this in relation to criticism of the Israeli State. Not jewish people, the Israeli State. Regularly, when Israeli State action is criticized, that criticism is dismissed as anti-semitism. It is an attempt to disparage an idea before the merits and demerits can be discussed.

ohnonotgmail

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There are a number of historical writers who write statements which are incorrect. These authors see themselves as devils' advocates and they write 'alternative histories', which are spurious at best. These people are not banned or shut down. However, it appears that if the label of anti-semitism is ascribed to an idea, then we are expected to accept that it should be shut down, with no room for dissenting opinion as to whether or not the idea may be expressed. This appears like another type of intolerance to me.

I see this in relation to criticism of the Israeli State. Not jewish people, the Israeli State. Regularly, when Israeli State action is criticized, that criticism is dismissed as anti-semitism. It is an attempt to discredit an idea before the merits and demerits can be discussed.

What other basis do you think for holocaust denial that is not founded in anti-semitism? These are not dissenting opinions. they are denials of fact.

Grolschevik

Pat Mustard wrote:

Of itself, is holocaust denial an illiberal idea? Can it be regarded as spurious argument without an illiberal or hateful aspect?

Rereading. For the second part of the question, I reckon so.

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What other basis do you think for holocaust denial that is not founded in anti-semitism? These are not dissenting opinions. they are denials of fact.

I don't dispute that these assertions are denials of fact. When I mentioned dissenting opinions, it was not in relation to the substantive issue of holocaust denial itself. It was in relation to to shutting down of discussion which has been labelled as anti-semitic, whether or not it is actually anti-semitic.

There are historical writers who write spurious 'alternative histories' on the basis of being devils' advocates. Many people buy into conspiracy theories and similar ideas. I presume that the underlying motive from the sale of these books is simply financial gain.

ohnonotgmail

I really have no idea what alternate history books, which are presented as fiction, have to do with holocaust denial so i'll leave it there.

Pat Mustard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I really have no idea what alternate history books, which are presented as fiction, have to do with holocaust denial so i'll leave it there.

They are not presented as fiction. They are presented as fact.

brian_t

Pat Mustard wrote: »

They are not presented as fiction. They are presented as fact.

'alternative histories' like SS-GB or The Man in the High Castle ?

Pat Mustard

brian_t wrote: »

'alternative histories' like SS-GB or The Man in the High Castle ?

No, those are not presented as fact.

The book "1421" by Gavin Menzies is presented as a factual history book. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

Here are links to criticisms of the book, where it is pretty much rubbished:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html
http://www.1421exposed.com/html/real_menzies_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies#Criticism

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/junk-history/8953466
This last link includes the following about the book:

Unfortunately, reporter Quentin McDermott points out, his book has a credibility problem. Professional historians label it naïve scholarship or worse, straight-out fabrication. Menzies writes, amongst other things, that New Zealand Maori are not Polynesians but a cross breed of Chinese concubines and Melanesians. The evidence for this, and many similar claims, is tissue thin.

So was "1421" an eccentric and fluky publishing success? Well no. Junk History tells how Menzies, his agent, his PR company and publisher set out to milk a public thirsty for revisionist history. Menzies hired professional spin-doctors to create hype about a half formed idea. Transworld, which also publishes Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", paid Menzies, an untested first time writer, a half million pound advance. The book was finished by a team of editors and a ghost writer. Revisionism is big business.

Unlike "The Da Vinci Code", "1421" claims to be a work of fact. For all that, it appears to have involved little fact checking and next-to-no academic scrutiny. Yet as we see in the program Menzies, his publisher and agent are quite unapologetic. They have cracked the big time.

This is not just a story about ones man's wild theory. It is a parable of modern popular culture, a tale about intellectual chutzpah and about a publishing industry that knows how to extract profit from a public which wants to thumb its nose at the dry though documented history taught at school.

Perhaps it should be referred to as pseudohistory, for the purposes of clarity.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you give me an example of somebody engaged in genuine historical research who has been charged with such a crime?

Well by the very construct of Holocaust law your question cannot be answered as anyone who deviates from the official narrative regarding the Holocaust can be prosecuted.It veto's any and all opposition.
The late Ernst Zundel paid a very heavy price for his attempts to question what may be seen as certain discrepancies surrounding this event.

osarusan

Pat Mustard wrote: »

No, those are not presented as fact.

The book "1421" by Gavin Menzies is presented as a factual history book. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

Here are links to criticisms of the book, where it is pretty much rubbished:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html
http://www.1421exposed.com/html/real_menzies_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies#Criticism

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/junk-history/8953466
This last link includes the following about the book:


Perhaps it should be referred to as pseudohistory, for the purposes of clarity.

I think one problem with the 'allow them to speak and demonstrate how wrong they are' line of thinking is that it does not have that effect on everybody. Not everybody approaches each version of events with an open mind and a willingness to evaluate rational arguments.

It's hard to make the case that young-earth creationists, or advocates of homeopathy, for example, believe what they do after a careful weighing up of evidence.

Certainly, many people will come to the realisation that a particular person is actually talking nonsense, but not everybody will. Some will continue to believe things just because they want to believe them.

In the last link you gave, Menzies 'set out to milk a public thirsty for revisionist history'. He set out to tell people what they wanted to hear, and I would not be so confident that those people are all that bothered by the rubbishing of his claims in general. Some of course, will have realised the book was rubbish, but by no means everybody. In fact, for some, I'm sure the more criticism the book gets, the more concrete their belief would be that Menzies is somebody who 'tells it like it is' and is a victim of 'liberal academia' and 'the mainstream media' and other such entities.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Well by the very construct of Holocaust law your question cannot be answered as anyone who deviates from the official narrative regarding the Holocaust can be prosecuted.It veto's any and all opposition.

YOu need to read the laws you are arguing against. they do no such thing

fran17 wrote: »

The late Ernst Zundel paid a very heavy price for his attempts to question what may be seen as certain discrepancies surrounding this event.

Giving an actual Neo-Nazi as an example of a genuine historical researcher lends no credence to your post.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

YOu need to read the laws you are arguing against. they do no such thing




Giving an actual Neo-Nazi as an example of a genuine historical researcher lends no credence to your post.

In essence that is what Holocaust denial laws are.I use Ernst Zundel,who was not referenced as an example if you review the text,as his two trials in the 1980's really brought this whole issue to the fore.These trials really helped to galvanise Holocaust laws,most notably in France with the Gayssot act and many other European countries followed suit.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

In essence that is what Holocaust denial laws are.I use Ernst Zundel,who was not referenced as an example if you review the text,as his two trials in the 1980's really brought this whole issue to the fore.These trials really helped to galvanise Holocaust laws,most notably in France with the Gayssot act and many other European countries followed suit.

What exactly do you think you show by mentioning Zundel (who is a neo-nazi or perhaps you are going to disagree with that as well) ? I asked for an example of genuine historical research that has fallen foul of holocaust denial laws. you have failed to provide one.

dr.fuzzenstein

I'm sure you guys understand that Germany is in a unique position with this law?
A good article on the subject:

https://smartergerman.com/german-politics/holocaust-denial-crime-germany/

You just cannot understand it, many countries have started wars, but only Germany started 2 world wars.
That in itself is bad enough, but the genocide on the Jewish people makes it so much worse.
There is no thought worse than something like that rearing it's head again here. I'm of a generation where my parents and grandparents were affected by the war. They told me their stories, both from the perspective of children (my parents) and grown up (grandparents)
Despite never having lived it, I've heard all about it and I remember many of the older generation missing arms, legs and having other various scars. My Grandfather had a dent in his head with a bit of shrapnel embedded in his skull and my biology teacher was missing an arm.
You just couldn't have a concept of what it's like as a German visiting any neighbouring countries, even when the people are friendly at least to my mind there's always that unspoken accusation, be it real or imagined. Definitely in Holland people are not toof ond of Germans and I was blown away by the Norwegians why couldn't have been nicer.
To me people who want to revitalise Nazi Germany or are sympathetic to it, are vermin of the worst sort.
I don't know if this law is the best way to go about it, but look at today's world. People state barefaced that the Earth is flat and the Queen is a Lizard. So people are very willing to knowingly state falsehoods that are clearly untenable under any kind of logical and critical thinking. People voted trump and Brexit for God's sake! So we know that there are quite a number of people who would willingly and with malicious intent state a massive falsehood with an innocent face and if challenged would just smile and say "what?"
Now saying the Earth is flat and the Queen a lizard is all fine and dandy, but saying the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't all that bad really and the Nazis were secretly the good guys all along is not only dangerous but in Germany completely unacceptable.
I have absolutely zero sympathy with people who get banged up or fined for that, the same as with having Nazi symbols or giving Hitler salute.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What exactly do you think you show by mentioning Zundel (who is a neo-nazi or perhaps you are going to disagree with that as well) ? I asked for an example of genuine historical research that has fallen foul of holocaust denial laws. you have failed to provide one.

Ernst Zundel also questioned whether the Nazi's had contact with UFO/aliens,so no I'm not going to make a case for Zundel here.His conviction in 1985,which was overturned,and subsequent retrial definitely caused many to take notice and I believe was the catalyst towards the implementation of the Holocaust laws as they are enforced today.
Define how one could genuinely research the Holocaust and come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official dogma and not be subject to Holocaust laws?

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Ernst Zundel also questioned whether the Nazi's had contact with UFO/aliens,so no I'm not going to make a case for Zundel here.His conviction in 1985,which was overturned,and subsequent retrial definitely caused many to take notice and I believe was the catalyst towards the implementation of the Holocaust laws as they are enforced today.
Define how one could genuinely research the Holocaust and come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official dogma and not be subject to Holocaust laws?

Explain to me how one couldn't? You seem to think this is aimed at academia. The law is concerned with incitement to hatred. If you have actual research to back up a claim then how can it fall under that category. Your use of the word dogma makes me suspicious of your motives.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain to me how one couldn't? You seem to think this is aimed at academia. The law is concerned with incitement to hatred. If you have actual research to back up a claim then how can it fall under that category. Your use of the word dogma makes me suspicious of your motives.

This is becoming bizarre.I assumed,even though I was struggling to untangle your argument,you could define your position regarding how one could,with research,come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official conclusions and avoid being subject to Holocaust denial laws.
I use the term dogma because it appears to suit the argument in a literal sense.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

This is becoming bizarre.I assumed,even though I was struggling to untangle your argument,you could define your position regarding how one could,with research,come to conclusions or observations which differ to the official conclusions and avoid being subject to Holocaust denial laws.
I use the term dogma because it appears to suit the argument in a literal sense.

Very simply by having evidence to back up your claims and not using them to incite hatred. How is this so hard to understand?

Carawaystick

Of course in Ireland we have state agencies to deny that holocaust deniers are actually holocaust deniers.
a british immigrant wrote

kevinmyerse wrote:

"There was no holocaust (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists)
and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two
statements of mine are irrefutable truths."

kevinmyerse wrote:

"It is an offence in Germany to say that six million Jews did not die in the
holocaust. Very well then, I am a criminal in Germany."

kevinmyerse wrote:

"I'm a Holocaust denier."

someone complained to rté when Morning Ireland called the person who wrote the above text in a national newspaper a holocaust denier, and their complaint was upheld. the BAI determined the author was not a holocaust denier.

http://www.bai.ie/en/download/132617/ pg 26 on

riffmongous

Well he was just being ridiculously literal to make a point and stir up some controversy, if I recall correctly. I think what most people unfamiliar with Myers missed, was that it all really just a set-up for him to write another anti-islam article.