Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Other whittling away of those columns includes 'questioning' the amount of gas shipped, witness counts, etc. So pretty much questioning specific claims, especially when you (not YOU) have a well known irrational bias (hatred) against your target group, pretty much mean you question the Holocaust as a historical event.
Again, you are positing racism as a motivation a priori to justify the ban on Holocaust revisionism. If we are dealing with motives, not the act itself, then we can say with equal certainty that people who spout Islamophobia tend to be xenophobes and/or racists before hand. Therefore, the motivation for anti-Islam speech (or any racial/religious vilification) is xenophobia, not intellectual debate, and such speech should be treated on par with Holocaust revisionism.
This is about the consequences. Laws are actually quite rational creatures. They are not enacted for no reasons.
Exactly: all hate speech has consequences, including Islamophobic speech.
Leaving aside people like Breivik, the less visible consequences involve discrimination against Muslims because of the ongoing demonization. This is not hypothetical; BBC and others have done studies in France, Britain, etc. that confirm bias against applicants with Muslim names. Granted, it does not equal mass murder, but it's the start of a trend of demonize and isolate a segment of society.
It is precisely for this reason that many countries, including in the West, have laws against racist/religious vilification but these laws often get superceded by free speech protections.
Their origins may be irrational, but the processes that created them are not. The argument to justify laws to persecute local Jews may be irrational, such as they allegedly 'control' the economy, cook and eat non-Jews babies, or perform bizarre rituals in the dark of night, gave rise to the rational process of creating those laws.
No one would dispute the justification for anti-Semitism (or, generally, anti-racism) laws; the issue here is to dispute the assumption equating Holocaust revision to anti-Semitism. Personally, I can see why someone might ask how the figure came to be six million, as opposed to four or eight. Asking for evidence backing the details is not anti-Semitism.
Jews have no problems defending the historical record of the Holocaust IN NON-VIOLENT WAYS
Again, it is politically incorrect to point out the truth, but the fact is that Holocaust revisionists have been physically attacked, even murdered (although I don't know if anyone claimed responsibility), and revisionist organizations have had their property and offices torched. Now, of course, you will say it's a matter of degree, but the point is that, when the law itself puts people behind bars and society at large censures such views, it does a good enough job of deterring violence.
muslims cannot defend their religion, which just like like every other religion that has no evidences let alone proofs
Correct; faith is, by definition, beyond proof and must be taken on its terms. That is why there are laws against religious vilification in many countries.
Facts, on the other hand, do NOT need to be buttressed by legal protections. They stand on their own merit.
Those laws are not to protect Jews but to prevent the resurgence of the mentality that kills them just for being Jews.
Correct, and our argument is that the laws should be written as to prevent vilification of all religions and races. It is true that the historical context in Europe is about Jews but, as you mentioned, the law is designed with consequences in mind, and the long term consequences of Islamophobia (or any racial/religious vilification) are also clear.
Defenders of science do not resort to violence, let alone genocidal means, against Flat Earthers and creationists. The Holocaust, as a historical event, is science. The mentality that gave the Jews the Holocaust is as irrational as that of the Flat Earthers and creationist.
See the flaw in your argument?
I still don't see it.
Flat Earth belief, like Holocaust denial, is an irrational belief that can be refuted easily enough using facts. There is no need for laws (unless you automatically equate it with anti-Semitism).