Holocaust Laws

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.

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?

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.

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 wrote: »

Rather like how the Soviets dealt with dissidents then.

Incontrovertible fact =/= official party line

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.

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

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...

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 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 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 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?

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 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.