It is always entertaining to watch the Muslims kvetch against the Holocaust denial laws.
If hypocrisy is truly the focus, then one should look no further than the US regarding hypocritical laws -- the American Indians. But when was the last time any American on this forum see any criticisms regarding how unfair is the US government treats favorably the American Indians over other US citizens ? Never. In US states where gambling is illegal, the American Indian tribes in those states are immune from legal prosecution. On reservation land, the American Indians are largely left to their own business. Anyone want to do any business with the American Indians, they will have to be vetted by the US federal government. In short, there are US laws that specifically targets -- in favor -- of a very specific demographic.
The various Holocaust denial laws in Europe are not even 1/10th of what we have in the US in favoring the American Indians. In Germany, Holocaust denial laws are accompanied by laws banning Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute so loved by the Muslims. In Australia, there are similar laws to the US in favoring the Autralian Aboriginals. Do the Australian Muslims on this forum moan about that ? No.
List of laws concerning Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To the Germans, the Holocaust denial and criminalization of Nazi symbols laws are public sentiments of how they feel about that dark period of what they believe to be a glorious history of a great people. For France and the French, their Holocaust denial laws are equally public sentiments of their moral disgust for the many French who collaborated with the Nazis to produce the horror that is the Holocaust. For Germany and France, Holocaust denial is a national embarrassment that must be confronted and do so with the full measure of morality and law. The Torah is not protected by German or French laws. Rather, Holocaust denial laws are intended to be prophylactic against the still existing Nazism ideology and its supporters, not to place Jews any degree over other citizens. Their Holocaust denial laws are far less about Jews than it is about the makers of those laws and the national shame they felt about their peoples having a hand in the atrocity that involved Jews, non-whites, homosexuals, and assorted 'inferior' humans.
Just as modern Americans feels somewhat 'responsible' for their ancestors' cruelty towards the natives who were in the country before their ancestors, or modern Australians feels similarly for their ancestors's cruelty towards the Australian Aboriginals, the Germans and the French have similar feelings of being 'responsible' for the Holocaust. The Federal Republic of Germany, aka 'West Germany', officially disapproved the first verse --
Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles -- from the national anthem, out of the fear of even an appearance of association with Nazi Germany.
The 1954 World Cup: Triumph of a New Germany | History Today
...a boozy section of the German fans began singing the banned first verse of the national anthem – ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles’ rather than the Federal Republic’s officially sanctioned third verse – ‘Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit’ (unity, justice and freedom). Foreign journalists present immediately took note.
- Muslims on this forum demands Americans feels 'responsible' for Viet Nam, Korea, or Iraq, but insists Germans and French be neutral about their participation in producing the Holocaust.
- Muslims on this forum believes in the proven lie that is
'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', but insists the evidence heavy Holocaust is a fraud.
- Muslims on this forum expects white Americans of today to feel a collective guilt for three generations old what their white ancestors did to blacks, but want modern Germans to shelve what their ancestors did to Jews just barely one generation ago.
In the abstract, the freedom of speech is absolute and should be unrestrained, but in reality, expression of support for Nazism when that odious ideology is still around is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and all supports laws restraining the freedom of speech in those extremely unique circumstances. The Germans and their fellow Europeans who have Holocaust denial laws are not gathering in mass protests over those laws about hypocrisy. Just like the Americans and American Indians, all of us who have these seemingly hypocritical laws know that despite the appearance of such a contradiction, those laws serves a greater good and equally important directly harm no one. Preventing the expression of support for and promotion of Nazism does not deny anyone government benefits, opportunities in the capitalist enterprises, travel, or elevate any group, minority or else, over others. A German Jew cannot demand the German government deny welfare benefits to a neo-Nazi.
Comparisons are inevitable and it is a joke upon the Muslims that they would complain about Holocaust denial laws, a relatively minor inconvenience upon all citizens under those laws' jurisdictions, when the Muslims' own countries have much greater restraints on the freedom of speech upon targeted minorities. Ethicists and moralists may not always agree to issues regarding human behaviors, but often they do agree on the odds of behaviors occurring under favorable environments. If the US and the Americans have as much direct contributions to the rise of Nazism as Germany and the Germans did, or contributions to the same the way France and other European countries did, those would be favorable conditions for the US and Americans to support their own versions of Holocaust denial laws. But do take note that there is a US Supreme Court decision to uphold a law restraining the freedom of speech of US white supremacists.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union
RICHMOND, VA - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.
For the US, burning a cross under certain circumstances is illegal. Why is this significant ? Because at one point in US history, the country and her citizens had direct contributions to a cruel national policy towards blacks. Today, persecuting white supremacy expressions under narrow conditions does not elevate blacks and other minorities over whites.
But let us grant some latitude to the argument that suppression of one group elevate other groups in relative perspective -- looking up from below. Fine. Then let us examine the reasons that became justifications for such a suppression. Do I want to suppress the argument in favor of robbery, rape, and murder ? Yes, I do. Convicted criminals believes nothing wrong with robbery, rape, and murder. Nothing wrong in the sense that such heinous acts are acceptable to them, even when they know the rest of the population do not share the same sentiments. Does that elevate me above them ? Yes, it does and I have no problems with being so 'superior' a person. Just like the Muslims in their countries have no problems believing they are 'superior' to the Christians and Jews based upon their own reasons and justifications, of them we know plenty about. The difference here is that being a Christian or Jew does not rob anyone of anything for being a Buddhist or an atheist.
This is not about hypocrisy, as alleged by the Muslims, but about petty jealousy towards a false perception of favoritism. How about a giant pacifier ?
