Je suis Vincent?

reprise · 26-02-2015 01:21PM

K4t wrote: »

If they're privately funded schools then it's their choice.

Why stop at holocaust denial? Why not fully fledged Jihad? or racial superiority?

K4t wrote: »

Your post is a good example of why the state should not fund faith schools however, whether they be Muslim or Catholic. It's why secular schools are so important and should constantly be strived towards.

The issue I raised means that you can teach holocaust denial as a historical "fact", to any faith, regardless of funding. I don't think this is a good example at all.

K4t · 26-02-2015 02:12PM

reprise wrote: »

Why stop at holocaust denial? Why not fully fledged Jihad? or racial superiority?

Well, because they're all stupid according to reason and logic. But if private schools want to teach that stuff then that should be their right. However, we have state funded schools that teach a Christian God exists and that his son performed miracles on earth a few thousand years ago. The state should not support religious indoctrination.

The issue I raised means that you can teach holocaust denial as a historical "fact", to any faith, regardless of funding. I don't think this is a good example at all.

You were the one who mentioned "Muslim schools". Of course it's not a good example, but it's a private school so it's their example to set. You don't mind your religious beliefs being enforced on children in state funded schools; at least the holocaust denial teaching would be restricted to private schools.

reprise · 26-02-2015 02:43PM

K4t wrote: »

Well, because they're all stupid according to reason and logic. But if private schools want to teach that stuff then that should be their right. However, we have state funded schools that teach a Christian God exists and that his son performed miracles on earth a few thousand years ago. The state should not support religious indoctrination.
You were the one who mentioned "Muslim schools". Of course it's not a good example, but it's a private school so it's their example to set. You don't mind your religious beliefs being enforced on children in state funded schools; at least the holocaust denial teaching would be restricted to private schools.

I think you are at danger of letting your hobbyhorse completely blind you to the subject matter and frankly, your ease with any kind of revisionist or radical manure being heaped on kids, regardless of legality, so long as its paid for, is absurd.

end of the road · 26-02-2015 02:45PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or just Je Suis Hypocrite?

How can the French square the massive support for "free speech" re: the Charlie Hebdo horror...and yet put this man in prison for 2 years ?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2vnikf/je_suis_hypocrite_revisionist_historian_vincent/

disgusting. clear france is against freedom of speach, and only supports it when it agrees with the government

reprise · 26-02-2015 02:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

disgusting. clear france is against freedom of speach, and only supports it when it agrees with the government

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

end of the road · 26-02-2015 03:26PM

reprise wrote: »

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

no, i think anyone who does it is a loony considering the evidence exists to disprove them, however i don't believe it should be a jailible offence

K4t · 26-02-2015 03:29PM

reprise wrote: »

your ease with any kind of revisionist or radical manure being heaped on kids, regardless of legality, so long as its paid for, is absurd.

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

reprise wrote: »

Do you think Holocaust denial is a good thing?

Nope, but arresting people for denying the Holocaust is much worse.

conorh91 · 26-02-2015 08:36PM

kidneyfan wrote: »

I'd love it if there was a Paddy Hebdo as scurrilous and vile as Charlie Hebdo. Unthinkable in this country

I have a very straight-laced colleague who was involved with a Trinity College magazine which poked fun at Muslims (and others) long before Charlie Hebdo was heard of on these shores.

They printed things about Muslims that the swear-filter on boards.ie won't even let me repeat. I think they had their funding removed by College authorities, but certainly were not prohibited by any legal arm of the State.

ambro25 · 26-02-2015 08:48PM

K4t wrote: »

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

That may well be the case in Ireland...but it isn't in France (state or private schooling, catholic or otherwise).

reprise · 26-02-2015 09:03PM

K4t wrote: »

The state already pays for radical manure being heaped on kids in the form of religious indoctrination in Catholic schools. It's hypocritical and misguided to criticise private schools for teaching something which defies logic and reason, while at the same time accepting it as ok for the state to do the same, simply because you happen to agree with the radical manure the state is heaping on kids.

Nope, but arresting people for denying the Holocaust is much worse.

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

reprise · 26-02-2015 09:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, i think anyone who does it is a loony considering the evidence exists to disprove them, however i don't believe it should be a jailible offence

Do you have any idea why it is a jailable offence or can you even think why it might merit such a fate?

K4t · 26-02-2015 09:23PM

reprise wrote: »

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

Dude, I never said I was OK with it. I simply said I would not support state suppression of the teaching of said beliefs in a private school. The key is to improve state schools and teach kids according to reason and logic, while simultaneously ridiculing those who would teach Holocaust denial to kids in private schools.

reprise · 26-02-2015 09:54PM

K4t wrote: »

Dude, I never said I was OK with it. I simply said I would not support state suppression of the teaching of said beliefs in a private school. The key is to improve state schools and teach kids according to reason and logic, while simultaneously ridiculing those who would teach Holocaust denial to kids in private schools.

Guide to world peace:

1. Implement K4T schools plans.
2. Laugh at those teaching holocaust denial, terrorism, racial superiority etc.
3...........
4. Success.

Amazingfun · 26-02-2015 10:37PM

reprise wrote: »

Dude, I am not indulging your hobbyhorse any further. You are OK with teaching holocaust denial to kids. That is on topic and that is very very sad.

That is not even close to what he said and your hysterics don't change the fact that putting people in prison for saying things that offend is ridiculous and ought to end immediately.

Vincent Reynouard is a threat to who, exactly? What does imprisoning him for 2 years accomplish?

K4t · 26-02-2015 10:57PM

reprise wrote: »

Guide to world peace:

1. Implement K4T schools plans.
2. Laugh at those teaching holocaust denial, terrorism, racial superiority etc.
3...........
4. Success.

Truly bizarre.

reprise · 26-02-2015 10:59PM

K4t wrote: »

Truly bizarre.

Indeed it is.

Baby Jane · 27-02-2015 12:09AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't get the reaction here : restrictions on free speech have always been upheld in France. It's part and parcel of such a delicate right as free speech that there should be restrictions, that's not news, that's not unlikely or extravagant.
Back in the 1990s I remember a lecturer from college (Lyon) being on trial for same.
Most French families would have/have had a grand parent who had recollections of victims, relatives of victims, or events they directly witnessed in relation to the holocaust. My own childhood's best friend's grandparents had successfully fled via several countries before the **** hit the fan.
My point is that this is much closer to French people's hearts than over here maybe, and so it is the sacrosanct exception it is.

Also, Hollande met the CRIF just last week

Haven't checked the article, but I would take a wild guess the guy and his ideologies are somehow connected to Dieudonne's rants.

Edit: just checked. The guy recorded a 45 minutes video in which he condemned some French organizations for taking youngsters on tours to commemorate DDay and honour the memory of those who died. Incidentally he was also accused of using images without prior consent, once again (2007 previously convicted).

In video, he went on to deny holocaust again, or not exactly, this time he denied it was a crime against humanity.
And yes, Dieudonne is a follower.

But people's point is that there can't be a call for freedom of speech from one angle, but forbidding of it from another.
I totally agree people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, but I do think they should be able to air it *somewhere* - so that it can be challenged. Actually, scratch that - something like Holocaust denial, I don't like it getting a platform, to be honest, but the point is that it's better in my opinion for it to be out in the open (within limits - obviously not talks being held about it in a synagogue! And I definitely don't think it should be taught to children) instead of festering away underground, and its proponents feeling like martyrs and recruiting messed-up easy targets as their followers.

Mountainsandh · 27-02-2015 01:14AM

Baby Jane wrote: »

But people's point is that there can't be a call for freedom of speech from one angle, but forbidding of it from another.
I totally agree people shouldn't be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, but I do think they should be able to air it *somewhere* - so that it can be challenged.

But that's completely contradictory, on one hand you agree there should be restrictions, but when restrictions are applied, you think that shouldn't be ?

French people with their different history, roots, and mixed population, have decided that this particular point was one exception to freedom of speech.

The question of whether that restriction is still relevant at this point in time is a legitimate one. Now that there are very few remaining victims, or close relatives and friends of victims, I guess the younger generations might be expected to accept that some idiots will always come up with such conspiracy theories. We are all more open, what with the internet, and we are all so exposed to all sorts of speech on the internet that I think it would be valid to argue that descendants need not be protected as their grand-parents were.
But as the law stands, it is still an offence to deny the holocaust publicly in France, or to deny that something is a crime against humanity when it has been established that it is.
Which is what he did : deny that the holocaust was a crime against humanity.

Actually, scratch that - something like Holocaust denial, I don't like it getting a platform, to be honest, but the point is that it's better in my opinion for it to be out in the open (within limits - obviously not talks being held about it in a synagogue! And I definitely don't think it should be taught to children) instead of festering away underground, and its proponents feeling like martyrs and recruiting messed-up easy targets as their followers.

I kind of agree with that, but again, that has not come to pass, and the law is still the one that applied since "lucky" Jewish ladies and gentlemen living in France who escaped the holocaust were alive.

My grandfather was in his 20s when the Germans invaded France, he was a soldier. My grandmother's house was requisitionned by the Germans, and she had to cook and do their laundry. My grandmother passed away a few years ago, my grandfather just last year. (I'm French, we're catholics)(or at least they were, I'm not anymore :rolleyes:)
This exception to freedom of speech was deemed important to show respect for people who were alive, and had memories of these events. That's not hypocritical. That was showing respect for the old gentleman in his 90s who lived on the 3rd floor, and could still remember the events. Or the old lady in the nursing home, who might still tear up at the thought of her big sister whose hiding host family home was raided while hers wasn't.

Maybe in a few years when all chance of a survivor has faded, the French authorities might envisage changing this particular aspect of the free speech law, I don't know, maybe it will be OK to do it then.

But right now, it's not hypocritical, it's upholding an exception that was really meaningful to several generations of people living in France.

I'm OK with that being upheld for another while.

Mountainsandh · 27-02-2015 01:21AM

K4t your remarks about schools are completely and utterly irrelevant to the French situation, where even a display of a religious nature is forbidden ie. a cross on a wall.

There hasn't been religious education in French schools since before my parents' time, and I'm 41.

The restriction on holocaust denial is as I mentioned above, a mark of respect for people who may still be alive.

Baby Jane · 27-02-2015 01:25AM

If there's to be a blanket exception though, then free speech does not actually apply in France, so that's why people view an impassioned defence of it in one scenario but very much not in another, to be hypocritical (when it comes to the "Charlie" atrocity, I'd be far more of the "Don't go on a killing spree" outlook rather than the "Protect free speech" one).

I do agree with restrictions in relation to anything that would hurt a group of people (i.e. how it's said, where it's said, who it's said to) - so yeh, that means I don't agree with unlimited free speech, but that applies everywhere. "Free speech" is actually a bit of a misnomer, seeing as what people can publish/broadcast is not without its limits, therefore it isn't really "free".
And that's the right way in my opinion - if there really was free speech, anyone could broadcast/publish anything, and nobody can, even in any democracy (private enterprise has a say too).

My view regarding Holocaust denial is that it does not warrant imprisonment, but the proponents of it need to expect a backlash ("free speech" from the other direction).

conorh91 · 27-02-2015 01:26AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The restriction on holocaust denial is as I mentioned above, a mark of respect for people who may still be alive.

Just to clarify... you agree with preventing hurt-feelings at the expense of free speech, in certain situations.

correct?

Please don't write an essay, that question is obviously going somewhere.

Mr. Remote Control · 27-02-2015 01:34AM

Je suis ungree.

Mountainsandh · 27-02-2015 01:39AM

But exactly Baby Jane, and the claims of hypocrisy are simply not relevant, because the same description of free speech apply in France (as the one you gave).

Free speech is not completely free.

French people have never claimed that free speech was completely free, have they ?

This is the well functioning model that has been followed without too many misshaps since the Republic has been established : free speech, with some reasonable control from the State.

French people have not been promoting a new form of free speech where no restrictions apply, simply to protect the free speech that is currently in place. With restrictions, but not so extensive that you may not caricature religions for fear of your life.

French people by demonstrating are simply stating that they are supporting the law in that satirizing or caricaturing ideologies/religions is acceptable.

On the other hand it is not acceptable by law to deny publicly that a proven historical event has happened, as a mark of respect for people who have lived through that event.

I really don't see the hypocrisy in that, there is a great difference between the two situations, and I haven't personally met any French person who claimed that free speech should be entirely unrestricted.

conorh91 · 27-02-2015 01:40AM

Mr. Remote Control wrote: »

Je suis ungree.

TU ES IVRE

Baby Jane · 27-02-2015 01:42AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But exactly Baby Jane, and the claims of hypocrisy are simply not relevant, because the same description of free speech apply in France (as the one you gave).

Free speech is not completely free.

French people have never claimed that free speech was completely free, have they ?

This is the well functioning model that has been followed without too many misshaps since the Republic has been established : free speech, with some reasonable control from the State.

French people have not been promoting a new form of free speech where no restrictions apply, simply to protect the free speech that is currently in place. With restrictions, but not so extensive that you may not caricature religions for fear of your life.

French people by demonstrating are simply stating that they are supporting the law in that satirizing or caricaturing ideologies/religions is acceptable.

On the other hand it is not acceptable by law to deny publicly that a proven historical event has happened, as a mark of respect for people who have lived through that event.

I really don't see the hypocrisy in that, there is a great difference between the two situations, and I haven't personally met any French person who claimed that free speech should be entirely unrestricted.

But imprisonment though? A blanket banning? That's not reasonable control from the state in my opinion.

Mountainsandh · 27-02-2015 01:45AM

conorh91 wrote: »

Just to clarify... you agree with preventing hurt-feelings at the expense of free speech, in certain situations.

correct?

Please don't write an essay, that question is obviously going somewhere.

Yes, as the law does.
When the hurt feelings are in relation to something the person has no control over ie colour of skin, race, historical event they were a victim of...

Not when hurt feelings are due to ideology.

Amazingfun · 27-02-2015 01:46AM

the hurt feelings

boo. hoo.

Mountainsandh · 27-02-2015 01:47AM

Baby Jane wrote: »

But imprisonment though? A blanket banning? That's not reasonable control from the state in my opinion.

The man is a repeat offender. He should really have got the message by now. It's not a blanket ban, it's a ban on denying the holocaust, or that an event was a crime against humanity. That's pretty specific.

Baby Jane · 27-02-2015 01:49AM

I agree with you Mountainsandh that people's feelings (due to things like... family members being wiped out via genocide) are important to take into consideration and anyone should bear in mind their audience.

conorh91 · 27-02-2015 01:51AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When the hurt feelings are in relation to something the person has no control over ie colour of skin, race, historical event they were a victim of...

Not when hurt feelings are due to ideology.

But you can choose not to be Jewish.

In our eyes* people can elect not to be Muslim or Jewish ... right?

*obviously muslims and jews reject the right to leave the faith

Je suis Vincent?

Comments