PDA

View Full Version : Holocaust / Genocide Denial



j4bberw0ck
03-Feb-07, 11:42
Germany has stated its intention of using its Presidency of the EU to put some new laws onto the Statute book. They plan to pass legislation making it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust or other acts of genocide, so that countries can't rewrite their own history.

Do you agree this is a good thing?

Stumurf
03-Feb-07, 12:00
A good idea in theory, but not too sure how the enforcement of it will hold up...

Especially in todays media age. Sifting fact from fiction is becomming harder and harder and usually most people dont care...

Are they thinking of addressing the past? Are they thinking of ceating a governing body to act as judge over past analysis?

Will the amount of focus on the past ever be redirected to the future? were supposed to learn from it and move on... When do we get to the "learn" section?

Angela
03-Feb-07, 12:17
[quote=Stumurf;187526]A good idea in theory, but not too sure how the enforcement of it will hold up...

[quote]

I agree. I believe (at both a personal and national level) that we should own up to past misdeeds, and hopefully learn from them.

However, I'm not convinced that the plan outlined could be enforced. It seems unworkable in practice.

Would the time, money, thought and energy expended really help us to move forward?

Would we not be better to concentrate on the present? :confused

weeboyagee
03-Feb-07, 13:38
I agree, the past is in the past - however horrible it was. Concentrate on the present and learn from the past, don't dwell on it.

I visited and toured the hollocaust museum in Washington DC and the feeling of absolute despair and helplessness that it left me with having been born in an age after the war thinking "what could/would I have wanted to do back then with the knowlege now of what happened" did nothing for my ability to face the world again leaving the building other than to appreciate fellow man all the more.

The one vision that remains with me vividly is the three pictures of the old jewish dwarf mannie (apologies i my language is not PC) - pictured by the Nazis as he is collected to go to the concentration camps in his Suit, Overcoat and hat, with his beard and looking the perfectly respected businessman from his local community. The next picture he is standing completely naked in the concentration camps. The next picture is a picture of his mounted skeleton, after disection by the Nazi medical researchers.

God help us if we choose to forget what these people did and why (if there ever was a why) they did it. Since it was such an horrendous act against humanity, too true - outlaw denial lest we forget but live for the future lest we dwell on the past.

WBG :cool:

robynaus
03-Feb-07, 14:17
If we deny the past then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes and the terrible things that humans can do to each other.

So no don't legislate keep talking about what happened and iguess you can't say it will never happen again but maybe if we keep reminding each other that this did happen it helps.

Anybody seen the brilliant 6 part program on the SS? Just been on our SBS tv station.

luv robyn

Tubthumper
03-Feb-07, 14:38
I visited a couple of concentration/extermination camp exhibitions during my travels, absolutely horrible. What amazed me about Dachau was that it was in a populated area, even during the war it was actually part of the town with neighbours, passing traffic, visitors etc. and people took part, encouraged, accepted or ignored it???
Exaclty right, if we forget (or worse, change) the past, we are doomed to repeat it.
But will 'other acts of genocide' include broadcasting the fact that Great Britian was the first country to use biological warfare or invented the concentration camp? Or our genocidal behaviour towards native populations as we were expanding our empire? Also the potato famine etc in Ireland?
Easy for us to point the finger at those awful germans. Let's not neglect our own sordid past.
No-one turns into a raving psycopath quicker than a normal rational man when he (a) thinks he'll get away with it b) everyone else is doing it or (c) Is ordered to do it

fred
03-Feb-07, 15:26
Germany has stated its intention of using its Presidency of the EU to put some new laws onto the Statute book. They plan to pass legislation making it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust or other acts of genocide, so that countries can't rewrite their own history.

Do you agree this is a good thing?

No, that is not the states place, it sets a very dangerous precedent, they would be going down the same road that led to the holocaust in the first place.

Either make all denial illegal, in which case a lot of people in this forum would be behind bars, or leave it alone.

You can't legislate against peoples beliefs and it would only put ammunition into the hands of the holocaust denyers. They'll just say "what are they affraid of?", "if it isn't true why won't they let us say it?", "why daren't they let the matter be discussed openly". It would spread like wildfire as an underground movement, people just wouldn't believe anything told to them by a government that outlaws opposing viewpoints.

fred
03-Feb-07, 15:44
Easy for us to point the finger at those awful germans. Let's not neglect our own sordid past.


Yes indeed.


http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/prisoner1.jpg

Let's not forget that these photo's wern't taken at Belsen or Dachou, they were taken at Bad Nenndorf, a British interrogation camp. They weren't starved to within an inch of their lives, beaten and tortured by the Gestapo it was done by British soldiers with the full blessing of the British government.

No country has a monopoly on evil.

_Ju_
03-Feb-07, 16:41
I agree, the past is in the past - however horrible it was. Concentrate on the present and learn from the past, don't dwell on it.


On the other hand you learn from mistakes and so that you don't repeat them, you need to know about the mistakes of others.

History is always that of the victor, because it is the victor that will leave the signs from which history is read. The way information technology is now, anyone can leave signs and information. Genocide happened/happens- fact. We shouldn't allow a lie to leave an imprint on history that some time in the distant future might become a truth.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 17:03
Yes indeed.




Let's not forget that these photo's wern't taken at Belsen or Dachou, they were taken at Bad Nenndorf, a British interrogation camp. They weren't starved to within an inch of their lives, beaten and tortured by the Gestapo it was done by British soldiers with the full blessing of the British government.

No country has a monopoly on evil.

Talk in cliches if you wish Fred , it seems to be a speciality.
I look upon this illustration of harsh British interrogation as 'fighting with fire' another cliche you can add to your repertoire. Britian would have had no interest in interrogating Germans had the country not been hi-jacked by a fascist madman intent on ruling the world.

No country has a monopoly on evil. No monopoly would be complete without the Old Kent Road, part of which which was reduced to rubble by Hitlers fly-boys. He sewed the wind and reaped the whirlwind (a 20th century cliche for you)

Incidentally was there any need to post those pictures?

fred
03-Feb-07, 17:08
I look upon this illustration of harsh British interrogation as 'fighting with fire' another cliche you can add to your repertoire. Britian would have had no interest in interrogating Germans had the country not been hi-jacked by a fascist madman intent on ruling the world.


Wouldn't they?

Those weren't pictures of Hitlers Fascist allies, those were pictures of Hitlers Communist enemies.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 17:09
As for the ballot. Holocaust 'denial' should not be outlawed. The very notion goes against the grain with me. I treat people who 'deny' the holocaust - as it is called - with a huge pinch of salt and think them slightly loopy.

However they are free to deny whatever they wish. There is an element of doubt about some of the figures but this is pure semantics. The 'Final Solution' was a bad idea , it was genocidal, brutally macabre and wrong.
If we continue to allow Governments and law makers the rights to censure free speech then eventually we might not all be interned or gassed, but we will be under the thumb of authoritarianism. Deny those in power the ability to control freedom of thought and the expression of such thought.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 17:14
Wouldn't they?

Those weren't pictures of Hitlers Fascist allies, those were pictures of Hitlers Communist enemies.

Stalinists then. At the time our 'allies'
The Brits usually have a good reason for torturing or starving folk.
Thos photographs prove nothing - mean nothing. They are out of context.
Show Brits popping pistols into peoples heads and then the blown away falling into open graves. Show piles of rotting corpses being bulldozed into pits by troops liberating camps which the British had built.

fred
03-Feb-07, 17:15
Incidentally was there any need to post those pictures?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

How many would have believed it of their own country if I hadn't posted them, you were still in denial and making excuses even after I did post them.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 17:20
A picture is worth a thousand words.

How many would have believed it of their own country if I hadn't posted them, you were still in denial and making excuses even after I did post them.
I'm sure your posting of those photogrpahs did not convince anyone that you were right or that they were wrong. It was gratuitous unpleasantness in my opinion. We all know what half starved human beings look like. What next? Piles of corpses?

theone
03-Feb-07, 17:38
The Brits usually have a good reason for torturing or starving folk.

Under what circumstances do you think the torture of a human being is acceptable?


Thos photographs prove nothing - mean nothing. They are out of context.

Surely the photographs are perfectly in context? They show that the good old British can be just as cruel and evil as anyone else.



Show Brits popping pistols into peoples heads and then the blown away falling into open graves. Show piles of rotting corpses being bulldozed into pits by troops liberating camps which the British had built.

I personally would far rather be shot in the head than tortured and starved.

Oddquine
03-Feb-07, 18:08
Making Holocaust denial a criminal act won't make one whit of difference to those who don't want to believe it, any more than legislating against all the various kinds of discrimination which exist in our society has stopped the discrimination.

If making things criminal acts ever stopped them, we wouldn't have lipping over prisons.

_Ju_
03-Feb-07, 18:25
Incidentally was there any need to post those pictures?

YES! It keeps us from talking about figures and gives a face to suffering. A face that could be mine, my sons or your sons! What make you uncomfortable viewing them is knowing that what was done to these people is wrong and must not be done, under ANY circumstances or justified in ANY way.

_Ju_
03-Feb-07, 18:33
I visited a couple of concentration/extermination camp exhibitions during my travels, absolutely horrible. What amazed me about Dachau was that it was in a populated area, even during the war it was actually part of the town with neighbours, passing traffic, visitors etc. and people took part, encouraged, accepted or ignored it???


People were just trying to survive and did what they needed too to do so.

Angela
03-Feb-07, 18:36
I've voted "no".

That's not because I'm denying that the Holocaust happened, or because I think we should forget it. It is painful to think about, but IMO of course we should remember it and make sure that generations to come remember it too.

Outlawing its denial by people who have somehow or other managed to convince themselves/chosen to believe it didn't happen, can't be practical. Distasteful and offensive though these people's views are to the majority of people.

I believe it would be better to allow open discussion about such terrible things, which continue to be perpetrated around the world, so that people are more aware of what is still going on now.

I'm sure that I am unaware of many atrocities and acts of genocide which have happened within my lifetime (post WW2). :(

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 18:40
[quote=theone;187596]Under what circumstances do you think the torture of a human being is acceptable?


quote]

er....far be it from me to indulge in hypothetical and voyeuristic concepts but....to contemporise things slightly if security forces detained a suspected terrorist who had conspired for example to poison a water supply, blow up innocents or otherwise threaten life in this country I would have no objection in principle to the use of torture techniques if it were thought innocent lives could be saved. No objection whatsoever. Would you?

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 18:45
YES! It keeps us from talking about figures and gives a face to suffering. .

If you need the reinforcement and reminders of unpleasant imagery and are unable to conceptualise and construct dialogue without them then fair enough. What's coming next I wonder...what else does Fred have on his hard drive?

Tubthumper
03-Feb-07, 18:46
[quote=theone;187596]Under what circumstances do you think the torture of a human being is acceptable?


quote]

er....far be it from me to indulge in hypothetical and voyeuristic concepts but....to contemporise things slightly if security forces detained a suspected terrorist who had conspired for example to poison a water supply, blow up innocents or otherwise threaten life in this country I would have no objection in principle to the use of torture techniques if it were thought innocent lives could be saved. No objection whatsoever. Would you?
Here, I thought you had the hump because of gratuitous nastiness in photos of starved blokes. Happy to sanction torture yet offended by some piccys? Golly gosh!
Anyway, the thread's about state-sponsored or sanctioned genocide, not state civil defence against terrorism.

_Ju_
03-Feb-07, 18:49
Everyone of us need them Percy. Everyone of us needs reminders in our daily lives. Except you, who seems to have a photografic memory and a huge empathy to include humanity as a whole.

Tubthumper
03-Feb-07, 19:31
quote]

er....far be it from me to indulge in hypothetical and voyeuristic concepts but....to contemporise things slightly if security forces detained a suspected terrorist who had conspired for example to poison a water supply, blow up innocents or otherwise threaten life in this country I would have no objection in principle to the use of torture techniques if it were thought innocent lives could be saved. No objection whatsoever. Would you?[/quote]

And another thing, can we imply from these comments that you, Perce, are a supporter of such practices as the unlimited detention without trial for suspected terrorists, eg Guantanamo bay etc.?
How about this: muslim youngster takes up suicide bombing (not as a regular pastime, obviously) as he's angry about illegal detention of his brothers in belief. What would upset you more: Photos of the resulting devastation or photos of the dudes in captivity. Or would you take up arms against publishing any salacious illustrations and just expect all of us to use our imaginations to visualise what MIGHT have been?
We all need imagery to assist in forming a view of the world. I wonder what the vintage lorry in your avatar means?

Tubthumper
03-Feb-07, 19:42
Living in the past? Restricted view?
Uneconomical? Damaging to the world?
Leyland: poor quality, unreliable, government subsidised, heavy maintenance?
Octopus: slippery, hard to pin down, sprays horrible stuff out if feels threatened?
:lol:

Bobbyian
03-Feb-07, 21:03
Germany has stated its intention of using its Presidency of the EU to put some new laws onto the Statute book. They plan to pass legislation making it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust or other acts of genocide, so that countries can't rewrite their own history.

Do you agree this is a good thing?

Its seems a Bit strange that you should be so informed (not) as such proceedings are not on the EU Presidential work programm nor in recent publications although it has been an on going question for years. where did you get your info from

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 21:04
Living in the past? Restricted view?
Uneconomical? Damaging to the world?
Leyland: poor quality, unreliable, government subsidised, heavy maintenance?
Octopus: slippery, hard to pin down, sprays horrible stuff out if feels threatened?
:lol:

I'm glad you're having fun. Talking thru' yer backside for the most part but some of it made me smile.

lorraine_2406
03-Feb-07, 21:13
The Germans tryied to take over Europe and failed now the have the Eu Presidency and are wanting to tell us what we can and cant say.I do beleve that it happened just a walk around Bergan Belsen tells you that but there are more important matters like stamping out Extremism that is taking over and climate change etc any fool who denys it ever happens you do just have to take them with a pinch of salt

theone
03-Feb-07, 22:09
The Germans tryied to take over Europe and failed now the have the Eu Presidency and are wanting to tell us what we can and cant say.I do beleve that it happened just a walk around Bergan Belsen tells you that but there are more important matters like stamping out Extremism that is taking over and climate change etc any fool who denys it ever happens you do just have to take them with a pinch of salt

In a roundabout way this move would help stamp out this extreamism you talk about. Extremist muslim clerics such as Hamza whaterver his name have denied the holocaust ever happened, and was fabricated by Jews to help in the creation of the state of Israel.

Anybody who really does try to deny the holocaust, in my opinion, must obviously have racist views or agendas.

theone
03-Feb-07, 22:17
[quote=theone;187596]Under what circumstances do you think the torture of a human being is acceptable?


quote]

er....far be it from me to indulge in hypothetical and voyeuristic concepts but....to contemporise things slightly if security forces detained a suspected terrorist who had conspired for example to poison a water supply, blow up innocents or otherwise threaten life in this country I would have no objection in principle to the use of torture techniques if it were thought innocent lives could be saved. No objection whatsoever. Would you?

Objection? I'd be outraged.

Right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty and adherence to the geneva convention to list a few are all things that make us "British".

Torturing prisoners is something totally against British morals. You'll be cutting off the hands of shoplifters next.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 22:22
[quote=percy toboggan;187611]


Torturing prisoners is something totally against British morals. You'll be cutting off the hands of shoplifters next.
No, that'll be Tower Hamlets & Bradford when sharia law is introduced c.2060.
It's not a bad idea anyway for constant offenders , providing they had the means to pay for the goods in the first place.

North Rhins
03-Feb-07, 22:22
[quote=fred;187565]Yes indeed.


http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/prisoner1.jpg

Let's not forget that these photo's wern't taken at Belsen or Dachou, they were taken at Bad Nenndorf, a British interrogation camp. They weren't starved to within an inch of their lives, beaten and tortured by the Gestapo it was done by British soldiers with the full blessing of the British government.


Those weren't pictures of Hitlers Fascist allies, those were pictures of Hitlers Communist enemies.


Please forgive me for appearing slow, Fred, but your two posts are somewhat confusing. Are you claiming that these photographs are those of Russian prisoners being tortured by British Forces in an interrogation centre in Germany? As an ex member of HM Forces I find this quite disturbing, perhaps you would be good enough to post a link so I can gen up on the subject.

percy toboggan
03-Feb-07, 22:26
The look more hungry than 'tortured' to me.
I watched a movie - 'The Machinist' last night. Christian Bale , the lead actor starved himself to play the part and looked every bit as bad if not worse than your three 'victims' Who took the photogrpahs and why?

lorraine_2406
03-Feb-07, 22:28
[QUOTE=theone;187663]In a roundabout way this move would help stamp out this extreamism you talk about. Extremist muslim clerics such as Hamza whaterver his name have denied the holocaust ever happened, and was fabricated by Jews to help in the creation of the state of Israel.

I see your point but these Extremist muslim clerics are also some of the people who there followers are prepared to blow them selfs up in the name of Religon and this problem is Europe wide. Somebody could deny the past just the same as i could say the moon landings never happened and although that is a bad comparison it does not mean that i am right it is just free speech but if something is not done to tackle this problem we could see it being a case of peacefull muslims being persicuted for something that a minority of other muslims have done and then we could be back where we started again, and in the Uk we could end up with a party such as the Bnp in power.

theone
03-Feb-07, 22:31
Please forgive me for appearing slow, Fred, but your two posts are somewhat confusing. Are you claiming that these photographs are those of Russian prisoners being tortured by British Forces in an interrogation centre in Germany? As an ex member of HM Forces I find this quite disturbing, perhaps you would be good enough to post a link so I can gen up on the subject. [/QUOTE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1745662,00.html

Lolabelle
03-Feb-07, 22:32
I think that history should be truthful, warts and all. The things that happen in war and the like need to be honestly recorded. Who knows, we may even learn something, but I doubt it.

North Rhins
03-Feb-07, 22:48
Thanks for that ‘theone.’ Not very pleasant reading at all. I suppose that at the time the threat of Soviet Russia steamrollering over the remnants of Europe was very real. Paranoia would have been into overdrive. I am in no way trying to excuse what went on but 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. I honestly believe that there is no comparison with the terrorist threat which we all live with today.

fred
03-Feb-07, 22:49
Please forgive me for appearing slow, Fred, but your two posts are somewhat confusing. Are you claiming that these photographs are those of Russian prisoners being tortured by British Forces in an interrogation centre in Germany. As an ex member of HM Forces I find this quite disturbing, perhaps you would be good enough to post a link so I can gen up on the subject.

No, they were Germans connected with the German Communist Party who were tortured on suspicion of spying for the Russians.

There was an article in the Guardian on the subject which was fairly comprehensive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1669544,00.html

Kaishowing
03-Feb-07, 22:49
Making it illegal for a country to adopt a national policy of holocaust denial is one thing, denying any individual from having this (IMO ludicrous) opinion is another matter entirely.
Where it becomes very hazy is when a public figure denies the holocaust.
When does somone cross over from 'private individual' to 'public figure'?

What about writers or filmakers? If that law was taken to the extreme, and they wrote or filmed a war story in which any mention of the holocaust is omitted, then they could be accused of holocaust denial and prosecuted under the proposed law.

Germany as a nation are bound to take this issue very seriously, as they should...but their reaction and subsequent attitude towards the holocaust as a nation is peculiar to them. They can't expect the rest of Europe to feel the same way.
This is a country that has made it illegal to show a film that's over 70 years old (Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph Of The Will') out of shame and out of fear.

IMO any country that as a matter of national policy denys that the holocaust took place should be globally vilified...Any public figure who openly states that the holocaust is fraud should be prosecuted....Any private individual who shares that opinion should be regarded as mentally unstable.....But people died for the right of that individual to have that opinion.

fred
03-Feb-07, 23:14
The look more hungry than 'tortured' to me.
I watched a movie - 'The Machinist' last night. Christian Bale , the lead actor starved himself to play the part and looked every bit as bad if not worse than your three 'victims' Who took the photogrpahs and why?

The photographs were taken by Scotland Yard detectives who conducted an investigation. Only one person, the camp doctor, was ever convicted, his punishment was to be dismissed from the army.

Tubthumper
04-Feb-07, 01:26
I'm glad you're having fun. Talking thru' yer backside for the most part but some of it made me smile.
Yep having fun indeedy, but not spraying stuff out yet, as don't feel threatened. How about yourself?

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 01:47
Its seems a Bit strange that you should be so informed (not) as such proceedings are not on the EU Presidential work programm nor in recent publications although it has been an on going question for years. where did you get your info from

Radio 4 is one source; also a number of political blogs but I won't link to them as to do so would be in breach of .Org rules re content.

Can I also point out that policy statements by the German government won't necessarily appear on the "EU Presidential Work Programm", whatever that may be?

Any other questions, Bobbyian? Now, how do you feel about being told what you can think and not think?

Oddquine
04-Feb-07, 01:54
Radio 4 is one source; also a number of political blogs but I won't link to them as to do so would be in breach of .Org rules re content.

Can I also point out that policy statements by the German government won't necessarily appear on the "EU Presidential Work Programm", whatever that may be?

Any other questions, Bobbyian? Now, how do you feel about being told what you can think and not think?

Ach.........nobody is trying to tell anyone what to think..........it isn't possible to legislate for that......they are just trying to legislate what we can say..........much like any form of legislation which puts restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Can't see there would be that many Holocaust deniers in the EU anyway...seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut..I voted NO btw.

Kenn
04-Feb-07, 01:59
My father was amongst the troups that liberated Belsen/ Bergen..for the rest of his life he could never look a German in the face.
No man should have to witness the horror of man's brutality to man and NO man should ever forget the horrors that we as a supposed superior race have inflicted on each other.

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 02:10
I hate to disagree, Oddquine...... oh alright then, I love to disagree :lol:

When you get down to governments passing legislation on what it's permitted to believe, it's the start of the slippery slope to what George Orwell described in "1984". It's an outrageous attack on freedom of speech, and freedom of belief, and there's no knowing where it ends; for instance, do you know that legally, you can be arrested on the say-so of a single European magistrate if it's believed that you have said something that someone might construe as xenophobic?

Following your arrest by the friendly Caithness police, you'll be extradited and held in a European jail until your case can be heard by the magistrate who signed the extradition warrant - whether that's in one week or twenty. There's no habeas corpus because it's Napoleonic rules - the magistrate merely decides whether or not he or she thinks there's a case to answer - proof doesn't enter into it. So back to your cosy cell you go.

So, what happens if the EU decides to pass a law which bans criticism of the Government? Or criticism of the decisions of government? How would you feel about being arrested, say, for supporting - or criticising - the invasion of Iraq?

It's so often the case that politicians will seize on one particular thing which catches the public imagination, and legislate without thinking through the consequences. An example; the legislation which requires the UK Government to extradite suspects in a crime to the US for trial. Intended to aid the "War against Terror", it's been used so far for a few businessmen who've done nothing at all wrong under UK law, but who've been arrested and sent to the US for trial because a judge over there signed a warrant.........

rich
04-Feb-07, 02:18
The British used torture in Northern Ireland. We are not saints.

Oddquine
04-Feb-07, 02:31
When you get down to governments passing legislation on what it's permitted to believe, it's the start of the slippery slope to what George Orwell described in "1984".

But they're not telling you what you can believe.........they are saying you can't go around saying it/putting it into print.

In the same way as you aren't meant to go around making racist remarks etc...........and doesn't that work well in changing what people believe?

I don't think it is either sensible or will be of any use whatsoever........but since when has commonsense governed the making of laws ?



It's an outrageous attack on freedom of speech, and freedom of belief, and there's no knowing where it ends; for instance, do you know that legally, you can be arrested on the say-so of a single European magistrate if it's believed that you have said something that someone might construe as xenophobic?

Following your arrest by the friendly Caithness police, you'll be extradited and held in a European jail until your case can be heard by the magistrate who signed the extradition warrant - whether that's in one week or twenty. There's no habeas corpus because it's Napoleonic rules - the magistrate merely decides whether or not he or she thinks there's a case to answer - proof doesn't enter into it. So back to your cosy cell you go.

Wasn't aware of that........just goes to show there are even worse justice systems than ours! :eek:



So, what happens if the EU decides to pass a law which bans criticism of the Government? Or criticism of the decisions of government? How would you feel about being arrested, say, for supporting - or criticising - the invasion of Iraq?

It's so often the case that politicians will seize on one particular thing which catches the public imagination, and legislate without thinking through the consequences. An example; the legislation which requires the UK Government to extradite suspects in a crime to the US for trial. Intended to aid the "War against Terror", it's been used so far for a few businessmen who've done nothing at all wrong under UK law, but who've been arrested and sent to the US for trial because a judge over there signed a warrant.........

If the EU banned criticism of the Government, I'll still be free to think what I like........though I'd guess I'd probably say it as well........there aren't enough prison places to hold all those who would, imo.

I'm not really disagreeing...but pedantic moi still can't see why anyone would think laws telling us what we aren't allowed to say becomes transmogrified into them telling us how to think. :confused

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 03:46
The British used torture in Northern Ireland. We are not saints.

Are you talking about acts of individual criminals in the British armed forces or legal statues which allowed torture in NI?:confused

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 10:42
But they're not telling you what you can believe.........they are saying you can't go around saying it/putting it into print. <snip>

In the same way as you aren't meant to go around making racist remarks etc...........and doesn't that work well in changing what people believe?

If the EU banned criticism of the Government, I'll still be free to think what I like........though I'd guess I'd probably say it as well........there aren't enough prison places to hold all those who would, imo.

I'm not really disagreeing...but pedantic moi still can't see why anyone would think laws telling us what we aren't allowed to say becomes transmogrified into them telling us how to think. :confused

OK, so you're free to think things but not say them. Where does that leave political opposition and freedom of speech? Up that well-known creek without a paddle.........

It's essential to a liberal, civilised society that there's freedom of speech. It's also essential that people exercising freedom of speech accept the consequences - so if you go into a place full of West Indians or Pakistanis or Muslims or Catholics or Methodists or fishermen or farmers or any other definable group, and make prejudicial or insulting remarks about them, you accept that there may be some consequences which will affect you very directly.

Most essential of all is that an elected government understands that it's different to all other groups and has no right of action when people express opinions it doesn't like. If a government is free to act against people it doesn't like, we're back to Stalin and his secret police.

fred
04-Feb-07, 10:55
Are you talking about acts of individual criminals in the British armed forces or legal statues which allowed torture in NI?:confused

Hitler didn't have any legal statutes allowing him to gas Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and those considered genetically defective.

Oddquine
04-Feb-07, 13:24
OK, so you're free to think things but not say them. Where does that leave political opposition and freedom of speech? Up that well-known creek without a paddle.........

It's essential to a liberal, civilised society that there's freedom of speech. It's also essential that people exercising freedom of speech accept the consequences - so if you go into a place full of West Indians or Pakistanis or Muslims or Catholics or Methodists or fishermen or farmers or any other definable group, and make prejudicial or insulting remarks about them, you accept that there may be some consequences which will affect you very directly.

Most essential of all is that an elected government understands that it's different to all other groups and has no right of action when people express opinions it doesn't like. If a government is free to act against people it doesn't like, we're back to Stalin and his secret police.


I despair of any society who would think it is ever acceptable to go into a place full of West Indians or Pakistanis or Muslims or Catholics or Methodists or fishermen or farmers or any other definable group, and make prejudicial or insulting remarks about them in the first place.

It's certainly essential to a liberal civilised society that there is freedom of speech...and it would be great if everyone in the UK was as tolerant as we seem to think we are...........but we aren't, and that has to be dealt with for the benefit of society as a whole.

Even the EU allows that The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I am prepared to admit that in today's world, the UK is going much too far in some respects with legislating against what we are allowed to say............but if we were nicer people, it wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Seems to me that it is more important for society to have legislation against the likes of discrimination/racism which marginalises sections of the community than to legislate against the legal free choices of the population such as smoking or junk food.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 13:34
Hitler didn't have any legal statutes allowing him to gas Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and those considered genetically defective.

What's that got to do with anything? and anyway wasn't it the case that the people who mention Hitler in a discussion to make a point means that they have a weak arguement?:confused

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 15:01
I despair of any society who would think it is ever acceptable to go into a place full of West Indians or Pakistanis or Muslims or Catholics or Methodists or fishermen or farmers or any other definable group, and make prejudicial or insulting remarks about them in the first place.

That wasn't quite the point I was making. I was using a simile to illustrate the consequences of unwise use of freedom of speech - not advocating that sort of behaviour!

Freedom of speech applies to a wider range of topics than race relations.... the point here is that we have a government (an unelected one) proposing legislation which makes it illegal to hold or communicate certain views. Note the difference; you're not putting yourself in the position of being unpopular, or of getting sued, by expressing an unpopular view - you are threatened with criminal proceedings for holding those views. That's a radical and highly dangerous departure. The only legislation restricting freedom of speech I can think of that's been in place over the years is the Official Secrets Act - and that, because it relates to a narrow set of factual issues that may not be disclosed, is a fundamentally different animal.

I am prepared to admit that in today's world, the UK is going much too far in some respects with legislating against what we are allowed to say............but if we were nicer people, it wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Ah, the good old British punishment and restriction mentality!

percy toboggan
04-Feb-07, 15:05
Yep having fun indeedy, but not spraying stuff out yet, as don't feel threatened. How about yourself?

...not really as an individual I live in a bit of a bubble really. Life is not so different on daily basis as it was twenty or thirty years ago.(Although I now drive a more modern truck! - wasn't driving thirty years ago anyway) As I travel around though I do see societal standards slipping in all manner of ways, although this could be partly due to the onset of a curmudgeonly late middle-age.

No, the thread attracted my attention because once again it is refering to mind manipulation, which is going on ever increasingly in this rather odd society of ours. We are constantly being instructed what to think, and not to question counter views. Indeed, often to hold or express such views sees one villified, ridiculed , lampooned or dismissed for a variety of stock reasons like 'homophobe;racist;little Englander the list goes on.

What we are in danger of producing is a bland homogenous breed of non-thinking subservients all willing to follow the 'on-message' norm.

I know something of the 'holocaust' although I do not like that word at all.The methodologies employed during the implementation of the 'final solution' are a permanent stain on the history of mankind. That they will be, and indeed have been repeated is an inescapable truth. The next time might see more efficient means than zyklon 'b' gas.Where I differ from many though is that I have no major problem with people who deny the 'holocaust' ever happened. They can argue over figures, down to the nearest million yes, but over such a short space of time history is not re-writable to this extent. As I, and several others have said such 'denial' renders the person open to questions of education, motive, and common sense. Not villification in my opinion, and certainly not ridicule. Ridicule is cheap and superficial.

Freedom of speech of course comes with responsibilities but they are not compromised by any person who tells me Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and the rest were mere labour camps. 'Arbeit macht frei' the ulimate irony, the ultimate lie for the ultimate in inhumanity.

Oddquine
04-Feb-07, 15:41
Freedom of speech applies to a wider range of topics than race relations.... the point here is that we have a government (an unelected one) proposing legislation which makes it illegal to hold or communicate certain views. Note the difference; you're not putting yourself in the position of being unpopular, or of getting sued, by expressing an unpopular view - you are threatened with criminal proceedings for holding those views. That's a radical and highly dangerous departure. The only legislation restricting freedom of speech I can think of that's been in place over the years is the Official Secrets Act - and that, because it relates to a narrow set of factual issues that may not be disclosed, is a fundamentally different animal.

No, j4bberw0ck, if the law gets passed, you won't be threatened with criminal proceedingsfor holding those views.........but you will be subject to criminal proceedings if you expound those views in public or in print.

Just as you can be for expounding some other views in the same way.

I would have thought, though, that Germany will fall foul of the EU Human Rights act if they try to get such legislation through..................after all, simply holding the EU Presidency doesn't mean that you can impose your ideas by declaration!

fred
04-Feb-07, 16:18
What's that got to do with anything?

Direct parallel, the British government were well aware that Rebuplicans were being tortured but turned a blind eye, just as they knew that Special Branch had Loyalist murderers on their payrolls who were protected from prosecution.



and anyway wasn't it the case that the people who mention Hitler in a discussion to make a point means that they have a weak arguement?:confused

I think you are refering to Godwins Law. Originally the observation that the longer a thread gets the greater the likelyhood of someone being compared to Hitler but later interpreted as anyone comparing their opponent in a debate to Hitler has automatically lost the argument. If you were thinking of throwing the towel in anyway it's a spectacular way of doing it. Neither would seem to apply in this case, it's difficult to have a thread about the holocaust with no one ever mentioning Hitler.

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 18:53
No, j4bberw0ck, if the law gets passed, you won't be threatened with criminal proceedingsfor holding those views.........but you will be subject to criminal proceedings if you expound those views in public or in print.

Exactly. The government would be limiting my ability to express my belief, if I'm of the view that the holocaust didn't actually take place (I don't dispute that it did, by the way). The government should have no right to inhibit me based on my beliefs.

The government having the right to, for instance, prevent me from mugging little old ladies is entirely different (and I don't do that, either). Passing a law to prevent my explaining racist or holocaust-denial beliefs (no, nor those) limits my freedom of speech; a law which prevents me actively inciting and encouraging racial hatred (and so drawing others in) is a different kettle of fish. If you want a definition of inciting racial or religious hatred, think of our friends who demonstrated about cartoons, waving placards that said things like "Death to all those who mock Islam". No, not picking on Islamists for any particular reason other than it's the best example I can think of ofhand. The activities of the Ku Klux Klan would be another.

You might think it sounds nit-picking, Oddquine, but there are some places government should not be allowed to go, on principle, because once they're there, there's nothing other than their sense of decency and fair play to stop the rot speading slowly further.

How many governments can you think of which are noted for their sense of decency and fair play?

No, me either. We need a written Constitution which guarantees the right of free speech, not laws which prevent it.

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 19:06
There's an interesting blog called "Devils Kitchen" which I won't link to because it would breach Org rules on content. Just found this on it (copied and pasted):


Last night, I saw a copy of the Framework Document <edit by j4bberw0ck - of the proposed holocaust denial legislation /edit>. And it's time to be afraid, very afraid.

The document—which my contact will not let me release, yet—is actually a development of a 2003 submission by the Italian government, although it is the German Presidency that is pushing for a resolution.

The document is highly contradictory, the most fundamental being that, whilst it aims to make the voicing of certain opinions a criminal offence through out the EU (punishable by one to three years in prison), it also states that it should not contradict inviolable rights, such as "the right to free expression." This is a nonsense, as the proposed law quite obviously does so.

Furthermore, whilst it requires member states to prosecute violations, as defined in the document, it requires them to do so under the methods of corpus juris; that is the Continental system whereby you must prove your innocence, a concept that goes against one of the most fundamental tenets of the British justice system.

The Framework also deals with what it calls "Legal persons", which includes companies, charities, etc. Under these provisions, if one of your employees, for instance, says something racist that is reported, your company can be banned from "commercial trading", banned from "receiving public funds" or even compulsorily wound-up.

Most worryingly of all for we bloggers, there are Articles, concerned with "information systems", contained within the document that are specifically aimed to cover blogs and websites.

Under the provisions of this framework <link removed> of Shot By Both Sides, for instance, would not simply have had to shut down his blog: he would be in prison, no matter where his blog was hosted.

As a British citizen, the British government would have been required to prosecute him. Had he fled to another EU country, that country would either be forced to extradite him back to Britain or put him on trial through their system.

Once this law passes, I give the BNP website about two hours. And, given my rants about certain groups in the past, I wonder if I should start raising funds for my trial now...Oddquine, you had reservations before about Napoleonic Code; howja like that little lot? You have to prove you DIDN'T say it, and yourcompany might get shut down.......

Typically EU.

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 20:56
Direct parallel, the British government were well aware that Rebuplicans were being tortured but turned a blind eye, just as they knew that Special Branch had Loyalist murderers on their payrolls who were protected from prosecution.

You drew the parallel and claimed it to be a direct one. Now tell me where the concentration camps are and the centres of torture in NI. Can you tell me when the warcrimes trials were taken place in NI? Can you tell me which company made the human incinerators in NI? Can you tell me when the mass deportations took place?

Pathetic...you must really hate the British![evil]

fred
04-Feb-07, 21:26
You drew the parallel and claimed it to be a direct one. Now tell me where the concentration camps are and the centres of torture in NI. Can you tell me when the warcrimes trials were taken place in NI? Can you tell me which company made the human incinerators in NI? Can you tell me when the mass deportations took place?

I didn't say there were concentration camps in Northern Ireland. I said that crimes against humanity do not have to be on the statute books for the government to be culpable.


Pathetic...you must really hate the British![evil]

I hate injustice whatever the source.

Oddquine
04-Feb-07, 21:28
Exactly. The government would be limiting my ability to express my belief, if I'm of the view that the holocaust didn't actually take place (I don't dispute that it did, by the way). The government should have no right to inhibit me based on my beliefs.

I don't disagree with that....after all, if we were forbidden to expound all contentious views, where would forums get their posts from! ;)



The government having the right to, for instance, prevent me from mugging little old ladies is entirely different (and I don't do that, either). Passing a law to prevent my explaining racist or holocaust-denial beliefs (no, nor those) limits my freedom of speech; a law which prevents me actively inciting and encouraging racial hatred (and so drawing others in) is a different kettle of fish. If you want a definition of inciting racial or religious hatred, think of our friends who demonstrated about cartoons, waving placards that said things like "Death to all those who mock Islam". No, not picking on Islamists for any particular reason other than it's the best example I can think of ofhand. The activities of the Ku Klux Klan would be another.

You might think it sounds nit-picking, Oddquine, but there are some places government should not be allowed to go, on principle, because once they're there, there's nothing other than their sense of decency and fair play to stop the rot speading slowly further.

How many governments can you think of which are noted for their sense of decency and fair play?

No, me either. We need a written Constitution which guarantees the right of free speech, not laws which prevent it.

Problem is, j4bberw0ck, your explaining reasonably in temperate language your racist or holocaust-denial beliefs is a completely different kettle of fish from a rabid BNP supporter spewing irrational and inflammatory remarks.

We are all entitled to Free Speech...but until we all learn how to use the right responsibly, the Government is entitled to protect the minority from the unreasonable comments of the bigoted.

Honestly, j4bberw0ck, do you really think that any government in the world has a constitution which isn't amended to suit the needs of a Government when they think it is necesary...........so what good is a written Constitution which isn't set in stone.and even the much vaunted American one isn't, is it?

Bobbyian
04-Feb-07, 21:34
There's an interesting blog called "Devils Kitchen" which I won't link to because it would breach Org rules on content. Just found this on it (copied and pasted):

Oddquine, you had reservations before about Napoleonic Code; howja like that little lot? You have to prove you DIDN'T say it, and yourcompany might get shut down.......

Typically EU.
You used a quote from 2003 if I remember but that was nearly 4 years ago the EU works a bit faster than that, see exert from EU parliment site

Green Paper on presumption of innocence
On 26 April 2006 the Commission adopted a Green Paper on the presumption of innoncence, a fundamental right laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the basis of the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commission has identified some rights that form part of the presumption of innocence such as the right to silence, the right against self-incrimination and the fact that the burden of proof should ordinarily rest with the prosecution. These rights are explored in the Green Paper and interested parties are invited to comment and to make further suggestions.
Interested parties should submit their comments by 9 June 2006 to the following address:
European Commission
Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security
Unit D3 – Criminal Justice


are you worried about something I´m not

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 21:40
Problem is, j4bberw0ck, your explaining reasonably in temperate language your racist or holocaust-denial beliefs is a completely different kettle of fish from a rabid BNP supporter spewing irrational and inflammatory remarks.

Your rabid BNP supporter has every right to have his or her views on the subject and to explain them any time, any where. What he or she doesn't have is the right to organise inflammatory events with the object or aim of inciting race hatred, or of putting other races or religions in fear of their lives.


We are all entitled to Free Speech...but until we all learn how to use the right responsibly, the Government is entitled to protect the minority from the unreasonable comments of the bigoted. I regret to say I have zero confidence in any government removing "protection" once they've put it in place whether or not people act resonsibly. Genies do not easily go back into bottles.


Honestly, j4bberw0ck, do you really think that any government in the world has a constitution which isn't amended to suit the needs of a Government when they think it is necesary...........so what good is a written Constitution which isn't set in stone.and even the much vaunted American one isn't, is it?That's what the judiciary is there for; the Constitution outlines the powers of the Government and the limit of their authority. An independent judiciary has oversight.

In Europe, the judiciary isn't independent; they're often political appointees and political appointees have favours to return, in theory if not in practice. And lastly, the US Constitution has stood up quite well and where it's broken down a bit tends to be in parts where society has changed so radically that the terms used are capable of multiple interpretation which the authors could never have imagined. But the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, for instance, are pretty well preserved.

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 21:47
You used a quote from 2003 if I remember but that was nearly 4 years ago the EU works a bit faster than that, see exert from EU parliment site

No, Bobbyian, read it again, more carefully this time. It's a cut and paste from a document which is said to be based on a paper produced in 2003 by Italian MEPs.

It is not a Green paper on the presumption of innocence. I do understand how Napoleonic Code courts work.


are you worried about something I´m not

I honestly couldn't say. I'm concerned in general terms about governments trying to limit freedoms under the guise of looking after people. I'm concerned that 80% of the legislative burden of this country comes from unelected people in Brussels or Strasbourg and that the UK seems to be the only country dumb enough to enact the laws. I'm concerned that laws can be passed and then used in ways which were never intended. I do not trust politicians. I think they mostly start out sincere but get forced into accommodations with the truth for reasons of "national security" and "trade" and ultimately re-election.

Perhaps I'm worried about things you should be?

Bobbyian
04-Feb-07, 22:01
I honestly couldn't say. I'm concerned in general terms about governments trying to limit freedoms under the guise of looking after people. I'm concerned that 80% of the legislative burden of this country comes from unelected people in Brussels or Strasbourg and that the UK seems to be the only country dumb enough to enact the laws. I'm concerned that laws can be passed and then used in ways which were never intended. I do not trust politicians. I think they mostly start out sincere but get forced into accommodations with the truth for reasons of "national security" and "trade" and ultimately re-election.

Perhaps I'm worried about things you should be?

Very True but thats Life.

And don`t think its different any where else in Europe The Danish,Dutch,French,Polish,German and Belgians that I have spoken to, say practically the same Those up top have themselves firmly placed in the saddle and know how to controll it so that no real change happens and that has been going on since Oliver Cromwell

Rheghead
04-Feb-07, 22:14
I hate injustice whatever the source.

Glad to hear it but comparing the British to Nazis clearly isn't justice.

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 23:41
And don`t think its different any where else in Europe The Danish,Dutch,French,Polish,German and Belgians that I have spoken to, say practically the same Those up top have themselves firmly placed in the saddle and know how to controll it so that no real change happens and that has been going on since Oliver Cromwell

I would say that's as clear a case of QED as it's possible to make.........

fred
04-Feb-07, 23:43
Glad to hear it but comparing the British to Nazis clearly isn't justice.

Just what is it you think makes us any different?

You think there is some difference in our genetic makeup which makes the British good and Germans evil?

j4bberw0ck
04-Feb-07, 23:57
An example of what happens when you deny freedom of speech
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6326277.stm)

Oddquine
05-Feb-07, 02:09
Personally, I'd object like hell if any of my children's or grandchildren's teachers was telling them that in a religion lesson...and I'm not Muslim........because it is one example of an inappropriate place to exercise freedom of speech/expounding of opinion.

The subject may be appropriate for a current affairs or history lesson, when the reasons for much of the suicide bombing could be discussed in context.

Here's a couple of examples of intolerance working the other way, j4bberw0ck............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6170028.stm

and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6135590.stm

fred
05-Feb-07, 10:06
An example of what happens when you deny freedom of speech
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6326277.stm)

Freedom of speech wasn't denied there, it was freedom to abuse your position as a teacher which was denied. In a class room the only voice the children hear is the teachers so it must be unprejudiced, fair and ballanced.

Did you think the right to deny the holocaust should extend to the right for a teacher to teach it in history class?

fred
05-Feb-07, 10:19
Here's a couple of examples of intolerance working the other way, j4bberw0ck............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6170028.stm


In this world where the bombing of civillian targets in the Middle East is ignored and all people want to talk about is some myth that maybe someone had their driving licence photo taken with a veil on I can only say they get it from their parents.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 12:14
Freedom of speech wasn't denied there, it was freedom to abuse your position as a teacher which was denied. In a class room the only voice the children hear is the teachers so it must be unprejudiced, fair and ballanced.

Did you think the right to deny the holocaust should extend to the right for a teacher to teach it in history class?


Andrew McLuskey was sacked from Bayliss Court Secondary School in Slough after a Religious Education lesson discussing the pros and cons of religion. Pupils at the predominantly Muslim school claimed Mr McLuskey said most suicide bombers were Muslim. (my use of bold)


I agree with what you say about teachers being unprejudiced, fair and balanced. They should also be accurate. This was an RE discussion, as you see from the quote, discussing the pros and cons of religion. It is a fact, in this country and in places like Iraq, that suicide bombers are almost exclusively Muslim, if not all Muslim. It does not mean that all Muslims are suicide bombers.


It does, though, mean that a teacher of many years experience can now be summarily fired for saying something that some Muslims don't like - to hi-jack for a moment the title of Al Gore's film, it's "an inconvenient truth".


Do you suppose that teachers in Germany shy away from teaching pupils about the Holocaust because it's inconvenient?


I do wish that people would see past this business about Muslims to the principles behind the defence of free speech. Now we have a situation where some things which are true apparently can't be said because an unpalatable truth "causes offence".




Personally, I'd object like hell if any of my children's or grandchildren's teachers was telling them that in a religion lesson...and I'm not Muslim........because it is one example of an inappropriate place to exercise freedom of speech/expounding of opinion.

Oddquine, please see comments above above "discussion" and "pros and cons" of religion - the very same discussion that's echoed round this forum on more than one accasion.

There are some very stupid and dangerous things happening in this country because of political correctness. Not the least is firing teachers for managing a discussion, because some of the people taking part "are offended". Firing without opportunity to explain, as well! So what happened to this second loss of the right to free speech?

Angela
05-Feb-07, 12:31
I do wish that people would see past this business about Muslims to the principles behind the defence of free speech. Now we have a situation where some things which are true apparently can't be said because an unpalatable truth "causes offence".

There are some very stupid and dangerous things happening in this country because of political correctness. Not the least is firing teachers for managing a discussion, because some of the people taking part "are offended". Firing without opportunity to explain, as well! So what happened to this second loss of the right to free speech?

I agree with you about political correctness, which IMO in causes problems where there needn't have been any. We also appear to have become such a litigious society that people are constantly afraid that they will be sued/sacked/otherwise punished because what they say or do will offend someone, or, apparently "breach their rights" in some way.

Is it only me that feels there is an obsession with Muslims creeping into a lot of threads? :confused

Oddquine
05-Feb-07, 12:39
(my use of bold)


I agree with what you say about teachers being unprejudiced, fair and balanced. They should also be accurate. This was an RE discussion, as you see from the quote, discussing the pros and cons of religion. It is a fact, in this country and in places like Iraq, that suicide bombers are almost exclusively Muslim, if not all Muslim. It does not mean that all Muslims are suicide bombers.


It does, though, mean that a teacher of many years experience can now be summarily fired for saying something that some Muslims don't like - to hi-jack for a moment the title of Al Gore's film, it's "an inconvenient truth".


Do you suppose that teachers in Germany shy away from teaching pupils about the Holocaust because it's inconvenient?

But do teachers in Germany teach about the Holocaust in Religious Instruction lessons, and blame it on the fact that Hitler was Catholic?

I don't think so! :roll:

And that is where I have the problem....suicide bombing or genocide is neither a pro or con of any religion, and has no place in a discussion of the merits of different religions. The place for that kind of discussion is within a current affairs/history lesson.




I do wish that people would see past this business about Muslims to the principles behind the defence of free speech. Now we have a situation where some things which are true apparently can't be said because an unpalatable truth "causes offence".

Oddquine, please see comments above above "discussion" and "pros and cons" of religion - the very same discussion that's echoed round this forum on more than one accasion.

There are some very stupid and dangerous things happening in this country because of political correctness. Not the least is firing teachers for managing a discussion, because some of the people taking part "are offended". Firing without opportunity to explain, as well! So what happened to this second loss of the right to free speech?

Nobody is saying they can't be said, j4bberw0ck............but we are saying there is a time and place to say them, unless the promulgation of them are forbidden altogether.

I have already said that the politically correct are going too far..........but I have no problem with limitations on Free Speech where the practice of it has no purpose other than to insult, abuse or incite.

I do despair, however of a Government who cannot apply those limitations to all sectors of society.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 12:39
Is it only me that feels there is an obsession with Muslims creeping into a lot of threads? :confused

Yep, you're right; I said above I wished people would see past it, but compounded the problem by introducing the link about the teacher being fired.

I think the problem is that the media is so full of "Muslim" it's becoming difficult to find other examples of PC and loss of freedom of speech involving other subjects!

Oddquine
05-Feb-07, 12:46
Is it only me that feels there is an obsession with Muslims creeping into a lot of threads? :confused

Nope..............but then that is the current obsession in the UK.........wasn't it the Jews at one time, and the Ugandan Asians and those from the Carribean later on.

But don't we still live pretty much as we always have, regardless of the problems we cause ourselves by our intolerance.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 13:04
But do teachers in Germany teach about the Holocaust in Religious Instruction lessons, and blame it on the fact that Hitler was Catholic?

I don't think so! :roll:

Oh, come on, Oddquine. You're completely, utterly and determinedly missing the point. The Holocaust targeted a certain sector of society because their religion made it easy to identify and discriminate. The Holocaust did not happen in an ad hoc fashion with Nazis running round with bombs under their coats - it happened for socio-economic reasons because it became the accepted wisdom that Jews, Communists and homosexuals, amongst others, were responsible for undermining the State.

German teachers no doubt teach German children that the Holocaust was a shameful part of German history, and I can't imagine that too many German parents complain about it.


And that is where I have the problem....suicide bombing or genocide is neither a pro or con of any religion, and has no place in a discussion of the merits of different religions. The place for that kind of discussion is within a current affairs/history lesson.

Sorry, Oddquine, that's just rubbish. It's the same issue with Christians and the Crusaders - that was about religion. Catholics and the Inquisition - about religion. Protestants and the slaughter of Catholics in 17th century Northern Ireland and at various times since - religion. Catholics and the slaughter of Protestants in 17th century Northern Ireland and at various times since - religion. If suicide bombers strap explosive to themselves and detonate it on Tube trains, in crowds, on buses, and do it shouting about how great Allah is, then the fanatics have made it a feature of the religion. The mainstream followers then need to find ways to deal with it.

Modern education is supposed to be participatory, I thought, involving discussion and understanding rather than learning by rote. Religious Education is required, as I understand it, to involve discussion of other faiths and the role of religion in society, rather than as I got it at school which seemed to be all about drawing maps of the Red Sea and hearing about Barabbas and Pharisees.

Any teachers in here care to comment?

Angela
05-Feb-07, 13:10
I think the problem is that the media is so full of "Muslim" it's becoming difficult to find other examples of PC and loss of freedom of speech involving other subjects!

I agree -I think I've mentioned the media on another current thread!:roll:

However -to return to the Holocaust....there was a good deal of Anti-Semitism in this country in the 20s and 30s. You only have to read the novels of Agatha Christie (should you so wish -I've just re-read the lot!) to see that it was socially acceptable to refer to Jewish people in extraordinarily offensive and derogatory ways.

Obviously Agatha Christie was only one person, but she was and still is very popular, so her views can't have been considered "inappropriate" at the time.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 13:17
You only have to read the novels of Agatha Christie (should you so wish -I've just re-read the lot!) to see that it was socially acceptable to refer to Jewish people in extraordinarily offensive and derogatory ways

Good point.......... times change and with them, targets. These days one might say it's socially acceptable to refer to American people in extraordinarily offensive and derogatory ways.

No television "comedian" is complete without his or her stocks of "all Americans are fat and stupid" jokes........ and I've lost count of the number of times I've heard conversations of that sort in the media and amongst friends or acquaintances. And Heavens Above! On this very forum as well!

It's worse than bird flu! It's everywhere!

Oddquine
05-Feb-07, 14:11
Oh, come on, Oddquine. You're completely, utterly and determinedly missing the point. The Holocaust targeted a certain sector of society because their religion made it easy to identify and discriminate. The Holocaust did not happen in an ad hoc fashion with Nazis running round with bombs under their coats - it happened for socio-economic reasons because it became the accepted wisdom that Jews, Communists and homosexuals, amongst others, were responsible for undermining the State.

German teachers no doubt teach German children that the Holocaust was a shameful part of German history, and I can't imagine that too many German parents complain about it.

And you are completely, utterly and determinedly missing my point.

Suicide bombing is a choice of some people who happen to be Muslim.

The fact that they do what they do has little or no relevance to the religion they espouse...........it is a political act following an agenda, whether that be against Israel, against another religious faction, against the occupation of their country or maybe even an attempt to make the Middle East a Caliphate.........but it is not being done as part of a religious requirement.

So it has no place in religious instruction..........unless you want to make it acceptable.

I was never taught about the Crusades etc in RI, and my grandchildren haven't been either. They do, however, in History classes.........because they were more to do with the methods used than the message spread...and that is what RI is about...........the differences and similarities in the dogma...........not the methods used by religions to spread their faith.



Sorry, Oddquine, that's just rubbish. It's the same issue with Christians and the Crusaders - that was about religion. Catholics and the Inquisition - about religion. Protestants and the slaughter of Catholics in 17th century Northern Ireland and at various times since - religion. Catholics and the slaughter of Protestants in 17th century Northern Ireland and at various times since - religion. If suicide bombers strap explosive to themselves and detonate it on Tube trains, in crowds, on buses, and do it shouting about how great Allah is, then the fanatics have made it a feature of the religion. The mainstream followers then need to find ways to deal with it.

I think I have replied to this point in my above reply.

Religious Instruction is not the place to discuss the consequences of the religious fanaticism of a minority, but the ethos of a religion as an integrated whole.



Modern education is supposed to be participatory, I thought, involving discussion and understanding rather than learning by rote. Religious Education is required, as I understand it, to involve discussion of other faiths and the role of religion in society, rather than as I got it at school which seemed to be all about drawing maps of the Red Sea and hearing about Barabbas and Pharisees.

Any teachers in here care to comment?

And I don't have a problem with the discussion of the methods religions are spread in History or Current affairs lessons.

I do have a problem with discussing it in RI as if violence has any role whatsoever in any religion or society other than for political reasons.

fred
05-Feb-07, 14:26
I agree with what you say about teachers being unprejudiced, fair and balanced. They should also be accurate. This was an RE discussion, as you see from the quote, discussing the pros and cons of religion. It is a fact, in this country and in places like Iraq, that suicide bombers are almost exclusively Muslim, if not all Muslim. It does not mean that all Muslims are suicide bombers.


Which leaves the question of whether this was a case of a teacher being fair, unprejudiced and balanced or was this a case of a teacher passing on his prejudices to the pupils. That would be for the school to decide based on a number of factors including if suicide bombers were in the corriculum.

squidge
05-Feb-07, 14:54
My son is doing higher RMPS - thats religious, moral and philosophical studies and I understand replaced the RE lessons i was used to as a kid - thanks goodness they were soooooo boring.

Within the RMPS lessons there are discussions about religion and the differences between religions but also ethics and morality is discussed so the issue of suicide bombers does have a place within the RMPS lessons. They have brought in local practioners of various religions to discuss some of the issues and they have also had doctors in to discuss the morality of keeping alive people in a persistent vegetative state or on treating murderers and paedophiles. It covers a whole range of issues and viewpoints- The holocaust being one.

I am torn over the issue of holocuast denial being an offence however I am reading Mao the Unknown story just now and they way that man altered the truth to further his own political aspirations is fascinating and horrifying to see. I think it should be against the law for a "state" to deny the holocaust - quite how you do that i dont know but individuals? Make those who deny the holocaust spend time with concentration camp survivors, visit Auschwitz or other concentration camps and see it for themselves. Let them look at the art work produced by the children of Auschwitz as i did at 18 in Manchester and fail to be moved or continue to stand by their denial then.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 15:07
And you are completely, utterly and determinedly missing my point.

I'll go with completely and utterly; but not determinedly... truly, I can't see it the way you do. Not for the first time, maybe we must agree to differ!


Suicide bombing is a choice of some people who happen to be Muslim.

The fact that they do what they do has little or no relevance to the religion they espouse...........it is a political act following an agendaSuicide bombers are built around the belief that as martyrs, they'll earn a special place in Paradise. That runs counter to the teachings of the Koran in several clear ways, as far as I've read; the problem lies in radical mullahs interpreting the texts for their own religio-political ends. It's the mullahs who make it a part of the religion since they're the equivalent of senior clerics and scholars.

So it has a place in any discussion of religion, just as the Crusades have a place in any discussion of where modern Christianity came from.


Religious Instruction is not the place to discuss the consequences of the religious fanaticism of a minority, but the ethos of a religion as an integrated wholeCan't see that the ethos of a religion as an integrated whole can't include some parts of it.


Which leaves the question of whether this was a case of a teacher being fair, unprejudiced and balanced or was this a case of a teacher passing on his prejudices to the pupils. That would be for the school to decide based on a number of factors including if suicide bombers were in the curriculum.

Good point, if one assumes that schools must rigidly adhere to a curriculum and discourage honest intellectual inquiry about anything that's momentarily unfashionable. If the teacher in question stood up and ranted about Muslims, he deserves all he's got. If he raised the question of what is it about religions which give them the power to inspire people to commit suicide while killing others, that's legitimate, I should have thought.

Considering this thread started about the Holocaust, it's a shame that we're back to Muslims (and I accept my part in steering it there by inclusion of the link to the teacher story, though it was honestly intended as a free speech issue) but as sure as eggs are eggs, we'll all be the worse if debate about free speech always turns into what we can and can't say about Muslims.

Thanks for the reminder, Angela. Fred, I've often disagreed with positions you've taken on a variety of issues, but I've surprised myself by agreeing with much of what you've said recently. Oddquine, debating with you is fun but we ain't going to agree on this one!

Anyone else happy to steer this away from Islam and back to whether Europe should have the power to extradite you for speaking your mind? :cool:

squidge
05-Feb-07, 15:51
Anyone else happy to steer this away from Islam and back to whether Europe should have the power to extradite you for speaking your mind? :cool:

Me me i tried i did honestly!!!!!

Stumurf
05-Feb-07, 15:56
well.. its now being appled to the gamers world also....

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72619-0.html?tw=rss.index

looks like this could integrate into a lot more than speech...

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 16:21
Gives you an inkling of how wide the net might be. I love Germany, and the Germans are wonderful, friendly, people, but their politicians do seem to love their restrictive legislation even more than the rest of Europe does.

Has anyone read "Fahrenheit 451", by the way? Here's a plot overview. (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/451/summary.html)

It was written in 1954; does the first paragraph of the overview ring any bells with anyone? Substitute "iPod" for "Seashell radio" and you've got a prescient view of the modern world Makes a change from quoting "1984", anyway.

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 16:29
Me me i tried i did honestly!!!!!

Thanks squidge! Thanks also for explaining the RMPS angle, and showing the dangers of the State controlling history and free speech from another angle.

fred
05-Feb-07, 19:23
Has anyone read "Fahrenheit 451", by the way?


Oh yes, a long time ago.

Did you ever read "The man in a high castle" by Philip K Dick?

percy toboggan
05-Feb-07, 20:07
I agree -I think I've mentioned the media on another current thread!:roll:

However -to return to the Holocaust....there was a good deal of Anti-Semitism in this country in the 20s and 30s. You only have to read the novels of Agatha Christie (should you so wish -I've just re-read the lot!) to see that it was socially acceptable to refer to Jewish people in extraordinarily offensive and derogatory ways.

Obviously Agatha Christie was only one person, but she was and still is very popular, so her views can't have been considered "inappropriate" at the time.

The main objection to Jewry , and the stereotypical put-down I have heard from all manner of folk since childhood is that Jews are 'tight' with money, and look after their own kind' I've only known one Jew well over my lifetime and he was allreet - a bit of an old fusspot/moaning/mitherin' type but he was okay. He had an 'M' reg.Hillman Avenger. It was '75 and I coveted it a bit.:roll:

What are these 'offensive and derogatory' references anyway Angela? Dare you say? Or are you fearful of the thought Police? The instance I cite is quasi-comical and it might be true. It's hardly a damning trait if it is. Can we still say the 'Scot's are famously considered to be tight with their cash too? Or have we lost all the banter which has been built up over centuries? The English are stand offish and arrogant? Some are, some aren't. I don't think I am. I'm just a miserable beggar some of the time.

Races are best kept apart in the main, in their own part of their own continents. Too much minglin' will only end in trouble. Look at Africa for a start. Those 'red Indians' would agree with me too. (Native Americans for the Guardianista) The Aboriginies in Oz might think I have a point en'all.If it's not race it's religion causes bother. Still , it all gives us somethin' to sound off about doesn't it? Not that a few in 'ere need much of an excuse.

percy toboggan
05-Feb-07, 20:14
Oh yes, a long time ago.

Did you ever read "The man in a high castle" by Philip K Dick?

No, but I bet you have.

Have you ever read Fred Dibnah's biography? I am. It's smashin'. Real world , working class British dirt under the fingernails bloke of which there are far too few about nowadays.

Angela
05-Feb-07, 20:25
What are these 'offensive and derogatory' references anyway Angela? Dare you say? Or are you fearful of the thought Police?


Not at all sure who you mean by the Thought Police, but why would I repeat what I found offensive in the first place?

Nothing to do with "banter built up over centuries".

The point I'd hoped to make is that only a few years before WW2, it was apparently quite acceptable in Britain to refer to Jewish people in a way that most people today would find gratuitously distasteful.

fred
05-Feb-07, 20:28
No, but I bet you have.

Have you ever read Fred Dibnah's biography? I am. It's smashin'. Real world , working class British dirt under the fingernails bloke of which there are far too few about nowadays.

I'm sure it is a most enjoyable read but swilling down a drip butty with a flask of tea while sitting on a mill chimney is hardly relevant to the subject we are discussing.

percy toboggan
05-Feb-07, 20:32
I'm sure it is a most enjoyable read but swilling down a drip butty with a flask of tea while sitting on a mill chimney is hardley relevant to the subject we are discussing.
Your riposte made me smile anyway Fred.
Angela: Thought Police are all over the place these days. I find them 'gratuitously distasteful' but it doesn't stop 'em !
Over and out - I'm feeling too whimsical to be serious toneet.
(Robbies Bitter)

j4bberw0ck
05-Feb-07, 21:35
Did you ever read "The man in a high castle" by Philip K Dick?

Nope, never been able to find the hole in the page that you fall through into the story (as Stephen King puts it) in Philip K Dick's stories. But having just Googled for a summary, I see why you mentioned it. I think :lol: . Maybe. Perhaps. You might have to help me out, though.

Mystified, though, as to why Fred Dibnah emerges here. Unless of course Robbie has an explanation http://www.teddies.be/Forum/images/smiles/pump.gif

Gleber2
06-Feb-07, 00:12
Nope, never been able to find the hole in the page that you fall through into the story (as Stephen King puts it) in Philip K Dick's stories.
You must be too sane!;)

fred
06-Feb-07, 00:19
You must be too sane!;)

Did you ever read "A scanner darkly" :)

Gleber2
06-Feb-07, 02:20
Did you ever read "A scanner darkly" :)

Not familiar. Educate me.

fred
06-Feb-07, 10:10
Not familiar. Educate me.

It's about an undercover policeman who is so out of his head on drugs he doesn't realise the person he has under surveilance is himself.

fred
06-Feb-07, 10:24
Nope, never been able to find the hole in the page that you fall through into the story (as Stephen King puts it) in Philip K Dick's stories. But having just Googled for a summary, I see why you mentioned it. I think :lol: . Maybe. Perhaps. You might have to help me out, though.


It's about a world where Germany and Japan won the war with flashes of an alternate reality like ours where they lost. It gets you wondering which reality is the real one, in the real world not the book. At the time the Japanese were flooding the world markets with cheap goods and Germany had emerged as the top economic power in Europe, Britain was crippled and still strugling to repay the enormous loans we got during and just after the war.

Gleber2
06-Feb-07, 13:19
It's about an undercover policeman who is so out of his head on drugs he doesn't realise the person he has under surveilance is himself.

Is Dick the author?

fred
06-Feb-07, 13:39
Is Dick the author?

He certainly was.

fred
06-Feb-07, 14:58
Anyone else happy to steer this away from Islam and back to whether Europe should have the power to extradite you for speaking your mind? :cool:

Or how about recognising that anti-semitism and islamophobia are the same thing, exactly the same problem and instead of steering it one way or the other attacking the problem itself. Censorship is censorship as where it occurs and a law introduced to stop rightwing nutters from telling lies could easily be extended to stop concerned moderates speaking out against the lies of rightwing nutters.

An interesting site I came across http://www.ijv.org.uk/

rockchick
06-Feb-07, 15:41
[quote=theone;187596]Under what circumstances do you think the torture of a human being is acceptable?


quote]
I would have no objection in principle to the use of torture techniques if it were thought innocent lives could be saved. No objection whatsoever. Would you?

Then you have just become the terrorist.

How does the ends justifies the means? If the 7/7 bombers blew up London because they somehow believed that it would end Britain's (and American's) occupation of Iraq, would that justify the action?

If you value a free and democratic society, you have to recognize that those freedoms and rights extend to all, however offensive you may find the person. No criminal, or suspected criminal, should be treated with cruelty or in any way that violates the basic human rights.

j4bberw0ck
06-Feb-07, 17:49
Or how about recognising that anti-semitism and islamophobia are the same thing, exactly the same problem

I can truly put my hand on my heart and say it'd never occurred to me that they're different.


a law introduced to stop rightwing nutters from telling lies could easily be extended to stop concerned moderates speaking out against the lies of rightwing nutters.

There are left-wing nutters as well, you know :lol: . One man's concerned moderate is another's raving commie lunatic.......... or raving right-wing nutter. ;)

fred
06-Feb-07, 21:26
I can truly put my hand on my heart and say it'd never occurred to me that they're different.


I'm pleased to hear it but fear you are very much in the minority.

Take a look at some of the other threads on this forum which are aimed at the Muslim minorities. Would peoples reactions be the same if they were aimed at the Jewish minorities? Would the moderators of this forum even allow the articles to be posted?

North Rhins
06-Feb-07, 21:42
I'm pleased to hear it but fear you are very much in the minority.

Take a look at some of the other threads on this forum which are aimed at the Muslim minorities. Would peoples reactions be the same if they were aimed at the Jewish minorities? Would the moderators of this forum even allow the articles to be posted?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
this is better than mogadon.

golach
06-Feb-07, 23:35
Would the moderators of this forum even allow the articles to be posted?
Are you now having a go at the Moderators, they are a minority also Fred

Oddquine
06-Feb-07, 23:35
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
this is better than mogadon.

Glad you can sleep through a perfectly valid question, North Rhins...........it does save answering it.

I am on forums on which the very slightest comment which can be construed as anti-Jewish (ie any one which makes factual remarks about Israel's actions in the Middle East) is met with shouts of racism and threats of legal action...........from a couple of Zionist Jews.

I have yet to hear any other non-Christian adopt the same attitude.........even where the posts are downright insulting.

Oddquine
06-Feb-07, 23:42
Are you now having a go at the Moderators, they are a minority also Fred

I don't think he is, golach...........I think he is just stating a fact.

Jews and Zionist sympathisers on the forums I am on produce "racism" and "anti-semitism" as a reply to anything said to which they have no reply, when they are not abusing the posters and getting off with it.

And this is down to the racism laws as applied to Jews and Sikhs, but to no other religion...........so of course moderators on forums are going to err on the side of caution.

Muslims don't have the same protection.

fred
07-Feb-07, 00:40
Are you now having a go at the Moderators, they are a minority also Fred

I'm having a go at everybody, hadn't you noticed.

Shall we spare a thought for the first ones into the gas chambers the Romanies?

Figures arn't easy to estimate due to their nature but it is quite possible that around the same percentage of the Romany population suffered in the concentration camps as the Jewish population yet they are seldom remembered when we talk of the holocaust, they are persecuted still and have no special protection against discrimination. They didn't get a country given to them, they are lucky to find a place to park for the night.

Then there were the disabled and mentally ill who were part of a program of forced steralisation even before that and the homosexuals who are still trying to recieve equal status in British law but then it isn't long since they were illegal in British law.

To end discrimination we must treat everyone equally but that isn't the case even when it comes down to ending discrimination, some seem to be more equal than the others. Is there some reason for this or is it just that only one group had a press agent?

Rheghead
07-Feb-07, 10:21
Then there were the disabled and mentally ill who were part of a program of forced steralisation even before that and the homosexuals who are still trying to recieve equal status in British law but then it isn't long since they were illegal in British law.


They weren't promised a separate country either.

fred
08-Feb-07, 11:45
They weren't promised a separate country either.

What do you think caused the holocaust? A load of people were told by their leader that they were superior to other groups of people, that they were the Master Race and they were stupid enough to believe it.

I'm not worried that it might happen again, I'm worried that it is happening again.


"Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."

(Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982)

North Rhins
08-Feb-07, 19:22
What do you think caused the holocaust? A load of people were told by their leader that they were superior to other groups of people, that they were the Master Race and they were stupid enough to believe it.

I'm not worried that it might happen again, I'm worried that it is happening again.
Or as an alternative,
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=766

fred
08-Feb-07, 20:13
Or as an alternative,
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=766

For one thing the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is not as it claims an indipendent neutral charity with the purpose of checking the truth in media reports they are a member of the Israel Campus Round Table, they are a pro Israel organisation which deals almost exclusively in criticizing anything bad said about Israel in the press while ignoring anything bad said about Palestine.

For another thing I don't see any mention of the quote I posted on their web site.

Oddquine
08-Feb-07, 20:57
For one thing the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is not as it claims an indipendent neutral charity with the purpose of checking the truth in media reports they are a member of the Israel Campus Round Table, they are a pro Israel organisation which deals almost exclusively in criticizing anything bad said about Israel in the press while ignoring anything bad said about Palestine.

For another thing I don't see any mention of the quote I posted on their web site.

Have to say that I have noticed over the years that those who are pro America and/or Israel always seem to use biased sites to back their arguments.
Personally, I always have a look at the About Us page before I link to stuff.......and don't link if the site looks as if it might be remotely biased.

fred
09-Feb-07, 00:54
On a related topic I have just learn't that yesterday our Foreign Minister Margaret Becket promised the Israeli Prime Minister that we would pass a law preventing the arrest of Israeli Defence Force officers in British territory.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/823625.html