Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where does genuine curiosity end and bigotry begin?
Hating Jews is a crime. Hating Israel should not be.
(And please don't give me the standard Israeli line that they are one and the same.)
For anti-Muslim speech, the speaker is deemed innocent and it is up to the listener to prove that the speaker had malicious intent. Intent is notoriously hard to prove, especially when it comes to free speech which are fiercely cherished by the courts.
.For Holocaust speech, the speaker is automatically presumed to be anti-Semitic unless they can prove otherwise. In fact, there is no defence, since the speech is banned, period. Even if the person can prove their innocence, they can still go to jail for not knowing the law
Ahhh...Racism is integral to Holocaust denial. The word 'revisionism' is just a shield for 'denial' because the person is just too chickensh1t to reveal himself. And racism is not used alone in the analyses that led to these somewhat mislabeled 'Holocaust denial' laws, although the analysts does take racism as prominent factor.Again, you are positing racism as a motivation a priori to justify the ban on Holocaust revisionism.
Therein lies the flaw in your argument.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.
In addition to Holocaust denial, the denial of communist crimes is punishable by law in Poland.
While Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in The Netherlands, the courts consider it a form of spreading hatred and therefore an offence.
... item five of section 283 of Liechtenstein's criminal code prohibits the denial of genocide.
You mean like this...Exactly: all hate speech has consequences, including Islamophobic speech.
When muslims decided not to integrate, that decision is pretty much one of self exclusion. I have friends in the UK who outright told me not to return to visit because the London I knew and liked back in the 1980s is not the London they in their old age avoid today for FEAR OF PERSONAL SAFETY in many areas of the city. A trend can be a double edged sword, and in the case of the London muslim, it is an Islamic one.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.
And the refusal of the muslims to denounce the fraud 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is motivated by what? A legitimate investigation into the figure of how many Jews died back in WW II?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.
Stop using the word 'revisionist'. You are not fooling anyone here. The correct word is 'denial'. These people do so out of a deep seated and irrational hatred for Jews and if given the chance to get away with a crime against a Jew, no matter how petty or major, they will do it. They have no moral restraints typical of civilized and progressive people. So if they get a taste of the medicine they wish, secretly and openly, to deal out to Jews, I say they deserve it. Allow the Jews to defend themselves.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.
You mean you wish to exempt Islam from proofs while demanding that others proves their religious legitimacy, else they should perish via conversion, forced if necessary. Laws that protect religions from criticisms no matter how slight or severe exists to protect the overly sensitive believers. Like I said earlier, religions are ideas and they need human agencies to exist and propagate. It is because of these human agencies that we have religious wars, large and small. So in these countries that are filled with overly sensitive religionists, it is better off to persecute the minority non-believers to preserve the peace. Such laws are indicative of the maturity of the dominant people who support those laws.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.
That is why we do not have evolutionists beating up creationists. Or the geophysics scientist raging at his Flat Earther neighbor. Religions are from irrational ideas but supported by rational beings. The inner conflict is self evident per believer. That is why for the Europeans, it is less about protecting the Jews and the Holocaust but more about being preventative of rational beings positing irrational ideas as true. Sorry, but questioning whether the Holocaust existed or not is irrational, while questioning irrational ideas, read 'religions', as to their legitimacy in demanding one's allegiance is quite rational and should be done.Facts, on the other hand, do NOT need to be buttressed by legal protections. They stand on their own merit.
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).
Yeah...When the muslims get rid of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' we can discuss those other consequences. World Jewry is quite confident that the muslims, if denied the Holocaust as a non-disputable event, will still be able to find other things to justify their persecution of Jews, like this fraud for instant. The Europeans, on the other hand, conceded to the possibility that among their own, there could be a resurgence of the mentality that made possible another 'Holocaust' and that the prophylactic measures they created for themselves is for the moment the best they could devise. Much more than we can say for the muslims.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.
Bigotry starts when you STATE that 6 million didnt die but a far lesser number did.
No one is saying its wrong if you ASK, how many died, and then go on to research facts, or ask more questions.
We've gone through this before, you keep conflating denial with questioning.
Technically speaking. However Israel being a JEWISH state most of the times it turns out to be anti-semitism that leads to hating Israel (because those people generally reject Israel's right to exist, which means they want 7 million people to die).
The intent is hard to prove, BECAUSE
Rant
Only closeted deniers try to find semantics of 10 million killed vs 6 million killed as a point of contention.
You entire rant consists of OPINIONS, not FACTS.
Come back when you can distinguish the difference between the two.
Where is the Holocaust denial?
Perhaps they didn't teach you to read English back in India.
You are. They taught me the powers of sniffing out a hoax. You don't deny Holocaust when asked, but you deny practically all of the claims behind it. Clever when in a group of lesser minds ...
Those two statements are contradictory. What you are saying is anyone can investigate all they want, as long as they come up with the required answer. If the conclusion is mandated by law, what's the point of asking questions?
This is the standard Israeli apologist speech. As I explained, even Holocaust survivors chastise the Israeli apologists for shamelessly abusing this card.
Wrong. Intent is hard to prove in ANY criminal case -- nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.
"all of the claims"?
Really? Exactly which of the claims have I denied?
Desperate much?
if you deny the underline claim of how many died , then you deny the bigger claim of it being a genocide and thus deny Holocaust as being a " holocaust".
Same goes for your subtle objections to other claims made , you have so many confusing BUT BUT added to as an addendum to your so called agreement of the Holocaust took place, it gets desperately pathetic ...
It isnt the required answer. It is the right one. It is not wrong to be skeptical about 6 million (BTW, the skepticism regarding the number is actually because of being sympathetic to the Nazis. They quote a far lesser number like 2 million, stating stuff like gas chambers didnt exist, or there were no laws passed to execute Jews etc etc., I am just keeping with the number to prevent the discussion into going into a holocaust discussion, and thereby deviating). But once you look at facts, and THEN DENY IT, it is holocaust denial aka anti-semitism aka racism, that needs to be dealt with.
Yeah a couple do. That doesnt mean anything. People have their own opinions. Chastising and calling Israel a terrorist state are two different things. You seem to have a weird idea about what criticism is. For you criticism is absolving Muslims of all responsibility for their current state, and then blaming the Jews. Or white people. Or whatever.
Nope. It is not. Especially when it comes to bigotry. We are not talking about some complicated criminal case here. We are talking about social issues. Socially if you do not integrate, in a place where the majority follow a particular culture, whether you are a muslim, a jew, a christian, an Indian or a Pakistani, you will be an outcast and suffer repercussions. Add religious extremism to that, you cant completely blame people for being skeptical about Muslims.
BTW you conveniently ignore a lot of my questions, Ive been noticing.
More sophistry that boils down to "you can ask all you want as long as you end up with the required answer". I am guessing you haven't a clue about how academic research works.
Try to stick to a topic without attacking me or launching into your anti-Muslim tantrums when you can't refute a specific point.
Another example of your intellectual dishonesty. The question was about proving the intent of people who engage in anti-Muslim hate speech and you conveniently switched to your old standby of Muslim bashing to avoid answering the actual question.
You guessed wrong. I know how academic research works.
And I also happen to know how anti-semitism works
When you say muslims are angels and face the worst stereotypes in the world and no one does anything about it cuz everyone is hypocritical, I am merely pointing out an instance that shows muslim hypocrisy, double standards, racism and intolerance. The fact that you actually cant answer the question, undermines your position, because it implicitly justifies my position, that Islamaphobia is not without its genuine reasons - reasons that muslims are responsible for themselves.