Prison Sentence in Germany for Holocaust Denial?

Great Debates
81

Sorry, I thought you had asked for the original source of the quote. I quoted what was in blog you noted. I find no difference between the two quotes, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

My issue is the pre-judgement of the case. Saying that a woman in another country who is merely accused of a crime is “either sick or she is evil” is not exactly what I thought a State Department was supposed to do.

Again, I brought this up, not because she drew a cartoon, nor because of what she did with the cartoon, nor what she was arrested for. I brought it up because I thought the State Department was way out of line with their response.

What part of “innocent until proven guilty” don’t you understand? I have no problem with either an individual or a government saying “Putting a banner saying ‘Hitler was right’ on a synagogue is a despicable action.” But saying “Mary is either sick or evil for defacing a synagogue” should wait until we find out if Mary actually did anything, n’est-ce pas?

I didn’t ask for the government to do either. Call me crazy, but I do ask that it refrain from acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in assuming that a person is guilty and condemning them as “evil” before a trial.

Well, when mobs of Muslims around the world are killing people and destroying property, and when imams and mullahs around the world are passing “fatwas” condemning the cartoonists to death, and when Muslim governments around the world are demanding that the cartoonists be punished, and when Muslim religious leaders are exhorting the faithful to kill people … at that point, seems like might be a bit more going on than “individual Muslims” …

If Christian leaders and pastors and priests around the world had called for the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma, and if Christians were rioting all over the world and calling for the bombing of the Federal Building, yes, I’d indict the “Christian world”. Since all we had was Timothy McVeigh, and not a single Christian priest or pastor approved publicly of his actions … no.

Not sure what you mean by “these sort of things will happen.” What sort of things? I have no problem with the Government disapproving of hate based actions. The US Government condemning a woman in another country as “evil” before she’s been tried, on the other hand? That I have a big problem with …

Finally, you say “And if you are thinking it isn’t an anti-Islamic thing, or that anti-Islamic things aren’t as bad as anti-Christian or anti-Semitic things, well, we will just have to differ.” It’s not clear what this means. If I’m thinking what isn’t an anti-Islamic thing?

To the more general question, ceteris paribus, anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic or anti-Christian things are all equally bad in my book. Don’t know if that answers your issue or not. However, I suspect we might differ on whether a given statement is anti-Islamic or anti-whatever. For example, I would say that the statement “Islam is a harsh and cruel religion” is not anti-Islamic. Why? Well, YMMV, but to me a religion that specifies that if you leave the religion and speak against the religion you should have one hand and one foot cut off on alternate sides of the body is harsh and cruel. Any religion that stones people to death for adultery in the 21st century is a harsh and cruel religion. So I would say the statement that “Islam is a harsh and cruel religion” is not anti-Islamic, it is merely factual. The truth is a defense against a charge of libel, and while Islamic folks might not like that statement, it is true in my eyes.

Which is why I think laws against hate speech and cartoons are a joke. Your “anti-Islamic statement” is my “true statement”, and there’s no easy way to choose between them …

82

It’s why it helps to post a link to things like this. It also helps people to find out the background, such as her arrest being not just for drawing a cartoon.

Well I assumem you can see how, when people are discussing hate laws and freedom of speech, and in particular you are discussing the US reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy, and someone challenges your claim that the US was craven in that situation, and then you post a quote regarding a woman arrested in conjunction with drawing a cartoon of Mohammed, and you talk the whole time about how you are a cartoonist who has drawn cartoons of Mohammed, it might be a reasonable assumption to think that you were discussing that aspect of it, not the “pre-judgment.”

You honestly think this doesn’t happen all the time? The 9/11 attacks were totally wrong, but I am not going to say Bin Laden is sick of evil because he hasn’t had a trial…

They didn’t act as prosecutor, judge or jury, because, you know, there was a prosecutor, judge and jury in the trial the woman was to receive. It’s an over the top statement certainly, but let’s not portray it as the US government imprisoning someone. Also, given how careful state normally is, I am willing to bet there is a lot of background to this woman that is not reported in that one blog and one paragraph in a state report. Wiki suggests she was convicted for, amongst other things, supporting a terrorist organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Soskin

As I have said throughout this thread - I oppose hate speech laws. I just don’t think the examples you chose are necessarily accurate.

83

I’m honestly amazed at some of the opinions regarding Germany in this thread.

I honestly feel Germans should be proud of how they’ve accepted and attempted to deal with the actions of the Nazis.

84

Here’s my complete quote on the matter.

Note that my comment is completely and entirely about the State Department response to the incident. Not about Islam. Not about cartoons. So to answer your question, can I see how someone might think this was about cartoons? Sure. All they have to do is not pay attention, they could think it was about anything.

I won’t say Bin Laden is sick of evil either … evil doesn’t seem to sicken the man.

My point was that it is not the business of the US State Department to assume that a private citizen who is accused of a crime in another country is guilty before trial.

Apologies for the lack of clarity. Where I come from, saying someone acted as “prosecutor, judge, and jury” simply means that they have usurped the functions of those people and declared someone guilty without the messy inconvenience of holding a trial. It does not mean that they imprisoned her. It does not mean that they sat in the courtroom in the places of the judge and jury. It’s not meant to be taken literally.

villa, I applaud your opposition to the hate speech laws, particularly since so many others seem to support them (but are unwilling to discuss the question.)

Other than the US State Department’s treatment of Tatania Soskin, who (as I explained) I came across looking for something else, what examples of hate speech laws have I given that are not “necessarily accurate”?

PS – Although the Wikipedia article might “suggest” that she was convicted of “supporting a terrorist organization”, the citations at the article do not mention this. The only thing I find there is:

Oooooh, she offended some precious snowflake’s religious sensitivities … she must be “sick or evil” …

85

Seconded. Few other nations deal with their past crimes that openly. It’s a major point in modern Germany’s favor.

86

Intention has presented well reasoned arguments, as have others - and one thing that really stands out to me is, no one arguing that these laws make sense have yet pointed out which of the statements intention listed are illegal. I have enjoyed reading all the posts, but in the end, the most logical argument, based on facts, is going to win out. Intention clearly wins on those counts.

87

I’ve actually had my own ignorance fought on Germany in this thread.

Last call for anyone to say which of my statements are (or should be) illegal in the Brave New World …

My sincere thanks to all, on all sides of the question.

88

I’m going to try to make this simple for you. Each asterisk below represents one million people killed:

Nazi Germany:

Communist Russia:

Communist China:

Those are necessarily rough estimates. The estimates for the number of people who died at the hands of the Communists ranges anywhere from 60 to 120 million people, depending on whose estimates you believe to be the most accurate. Even so, it is abundantly clear that Communism was several times the catastrophe that Nazism was. Does this not mean that Communism, as well as all the theories and doctrines related to Communism, lies beyond the “realm of decency” as well? If so, to what lengths are we allowed to go to suppress Communism?

If there had been no Lenin, there would have been no Hitler.

89

9 million? So the 5.7 million victims of the Shoah, the 11 million plus Soviet citizens, the 10 million plus Soviet military, the 2.5 million Poles, the million or so Yugoslavs etc etc add up to 9 million?

90

Okay, so 30.2 million. Hell, let’s kick it up a notch to 40 million just so we don’t miss anybody. Communism was still the greater disaster by far. (Although I don’t think the combat deaths should count. We’re talking about democide, not war casualties.)

91

Nice to see how cavalier you are about over 20 million deaths.

I’m not interested in the communism v fascism argument here, but your dismissal of massive numbers of the victims of the Nazis makes you look very much like an apologist.

92

And your cavalier dismissal of the millions murdered by the Communists doesn’t make you look like an apologist?

93

Give me one instance where I have dismissed the millions murdered by communism?

You can’t, because I haven’t. Not wanting to debate whether communism or fascism were worse isn’t the same thing as dismissing the murders. I’d say that warrants an apology, but I doubt I’ll get one.

You made up a ridiculously small number for the victims of the Nazis. I called you on it. You shrugged, and said, essentially, “9 million, 40 million, what’s the difference.”

And despite our adding not counting combat deaths, well, your numbers are still wrong. Should you count the million who died in Leningrad? And your intial comment was the number of people killed. I guess it doesn’t count if they are killed in a war of aggression. Or were the poor Nazis just defending themselves and Christian European heritage. Do the Poles not count because Uncle Adolph told us the Poles started the war in 1939?

94

No, I didn’t make up a “ridiculously small number.” I merely cited the number generally given for those who died in the death camps. It simply didn’t occur to me to include the others. But even after you’ve included the others, the Communists still had a much bigger pile of corpses at the end of their watch than did the Nazis, and yet nobody seems to think it necessary to fine or imprison anyone for denying or “trivializing” the gulags.

I certainly believe that the endless campaign to constantly remind everyone of the Holocaust over and over again has greatly distorted the history of the twentieth century in the minds of many people. If that makes me an apologist or a trivializer, then I merrily plead guilty to the charge.

95

Where do you get 9 million as the number who died in the death camps from? Assuming you mean the extermination camps of the Final Solution, it’s a number I have never heard.

Are you counting the POW camps where Soviet prisoners were starved to death as death camps?

I guess you aren’t going to apologize for making things up about me. What a surprise.

I also find it ridiculous that certain people are unable to discuss Hitler’s crimes without feeling they have to add on, for political reasons, “well the communists were worse.” Are you incapable of saying John Wayne Gacy was evil without saying Ted Bundy was more evil?

96

Oh, no, you haven’t dismissed them at all. You just don’t seem to want to talk about them, and you apparently don’t want anybody else to talk about them either. Somehow there is an intense concern about the victims of Nazism but virtually none about the victims of Communism.

You accuse me of dishonesty, and I’m the one who should apologize? :confused:

[quote=“villa, post:93, topic:487715”]

You made up a ridiculously small number for the victims of the Nazis. I called you on it. You shrugged, and said, essentially, “9 million, 40 million, what’s the difference.”

No matter how you look at it, *the Communists killed many more people than the Nazis, * and yet no one seems to think it necessary to fine or imprison anyone for “trivializing” the gulags or the killing fields of Cambodia. You can blither and snarl all you want, it won’t change that fact.

97

American Arrogance.
Germans do what works for them. Americans do what works for the USA. The German view is different than that of the USA. You can’t equate different to inferior.

If I understand the state of ‘free speech’ in democratic countries, the US point of view is extreme. Pretty much all other ‘free speech’ countries have restrictions that the US doesn’t. I don’t have a full survey, but I think I recall that Canada has restrictions that most Americans would find odd/wrong. But most Canadians are fine with it.

We as a nation have indoctrinated ourselves into believing in the sanctity of extreme “free speech,” which is fine. It works for me, it works for us. But I don’t see how Americans can poo-poo other countries who have concluded that some speech leads to violence and that speech is not protected. It’s a perfectly reasonable, different point of view.

98

I find it ridiculous that certain people seem very anxious not to put the Nazi atrocities in a meaningful historical context. Sort of makes me wonder if they want the rest of us to just not think about all that blood the Commies spilled. To understand Nazism, you must understand it in relation to Communism. As I said, if there had been no Lenin there would have been no Hitler.

Since you’re unhappy with my numbers and appear desperately to want exact figures, let’s just go with what R.J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, gives on his website about democide.

China, 1949-87: 76,702,000
Russia 1917-87: 61,911,000
Germany 1933-45: 20,946,000

The question is, why does Europe supposedly need special laws governing discussion of Nazism but not Communism?

I’m done with you. Goodbye.

99

These laws are generally against genocide not an ideology. In the EU they cover all crimes against humanity whoever they are espoused by.

Germany and Israel certainly get a pass from me for their particular hard-on for Nazi’s.

It just so happens that it is Nazi’s who go in for denial - of a particular genocide.

I’ve never met anyone who denies the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao outside of cranks and loons. Back in the 70’s, before Pol Pot’s crimes became well known I was taught by someone still swallowing the propaganda but she was treated as a loon by us as the truth was obvious.

Fascism itself is alive and well in various legal European parties. It, like Communism is not illegal or suppressed. Denying genocide or publicly inciting it under defined circumstances subject to judicial process, is.

Euro-communism broke from the Soviet Union, as a model. As did the USSR from Stalin once the old Monster was dead. The new Russia certainly has not addressed the issue though.

In the Ukraine denial of the famines is prosecutable.

No one on the Left is calling for totalitarian communism and if any were no-one is listening. I certainly can’t think of any even fringe left western european parties that deny the crimes of Stalin or Mao.

Unfortunately the same is not true on the Right. Unreconstructed fascism is alive and thriving and focusing on immigrants which is why they tend to feature in high profile cases making it seem like anti-genocide laws are anti fascist laws.

Armenian genocide denial has been prosecuted in France and Spain is keen to go after anyone involved in war crimes.

It’s the guilty countries like Turkey, Serbia, Russia, China and Indonesia who haven’t addressed their historic guilt through laws that need looking at closely not the Europeans who are saying ‘never again’.

100

Gulag deniers use a different (and, I think, much more effective) tactic than Holocaust deniers. Gulag deniers simply refuse to talk about it or take it seriously and will try to shout down anybody who does try to talk about it. A Holocaust denier will tell you, “There is no elephant in the room! It’s a lie! You are the victim of a colossal hoax!” A gulag denier will tell you, “Yes, there’s an elephant in the room. But look at the drapes and carpet. Aren’t they terrible? And the canapes the hostess is serving must have been sitting in the refrigerator for days. And just look at that huge, ugly St. Bernard in the backyard next door! So, yes, there’s an elephant in the room, but, damn, that St. Bernard is ugly!”

I maintain the Holocaust receives more attention than it deserves. Something like two hundred million people perished in various democides in the twentieth century, but we are constantly reminded over and over again only of the Holocaust. I maintain that this constant attention to the Holocaust, without reference to the many other democides which took place in that wretched century, creates a serious distortion in the history of that period in the minds of many people.

In some European countries, and perhaps in Canada, I could be accused of “trivializing” the Holocaust and fined or imprisoned for saying that. Yet many people make similar statements about the gulags, famines, and killing fields of the Communists, and they need have no fear of being hauled before a judge or a tribunal. Why is this?