NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/08/iran_israel051208.html

Do we really need a nation like this in the UN? Holocaust deniers go to jail, so the least the UN can do is kick Iran out.

Two things:

1) He might not represent the opinion in Iran, he was elected on an entirely different platform.

2) What would we achieve by kicking Iran out of the UN?

Two things:

1) He might not represent the opinion in Iran, he was elected on an entirely different platform.

2) What would we achieve by kicking Iran out of the UN?

1) Removing Iran from the UN would not have anything to do with the opinions of Iranians.

2) It would send a message that the world does not tolerate those who advocate the destruction of a whole people and a whole nation.

I would feel the same way if another Nation came out and said that the genocide in Rwanda never happened or ethnic cleansing never occured in the Balkans.

Two things:

1) He might not represent the opinion in Iran, he was elected on an entirely different platform.

2) What would we achieve by kicking Iran out of the UN?
Iran has to start taking responsibility for its actions though. Even Russia at this point supports that some form of actions be taken against Iran. Its nuclear program has to be stopped.

As for kicking out Iran from the UN, heh, well we saw what happened when Germany was kicked out of the League of Nations post-WW 1. Not a good idea.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/08/iran_israel051208.html

Do we really need a nation like this in the UN? Holocaust deniers go to jail, so the least the UN can do is kick Iran out.

Kick them out because the government denies the Holocaust? Nah, don't think so... But then again, I'm opposed to sending holocaust deniers to jail - it's a freedom of speech-thing.

If there is a reason to kick them out in this case, it's because they want to have Israel "wiped off the map". (It's not polite to do so in international politics, you know.)

Not only Iran but China North Korea Sadi Arabia, Syria, and anyother nation that's not a demorcracy.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/08/iran_israel051208.html

Do we really need a nation like this in the UN? Holocaust deniers go to jail, so the least the UN can do is kick Iran out.
PARKING LOT TIME! :D

Not only Iran but China North Korea Sadi Arabia, Syria, and anyother nation that's not a demorcracy.
Like Pakistan and Uzbekistan? And Bhutan?

If there is a reason to kick them out in this case, it's because they want to have Israel "wiped off the map". (It's not polite to do so in international politics, you know.)

I agree with you that they should be kicked out of the UN, but I would like to point out that if making remarks about 'wiping Israel off the map' is enough to do so, I can point out almost two dozen arab nations that need out.

Geez, what do we need to do to get ourselves kicked out of the UN? I think we should leave before Iran does

I agree with you that they should be kicked out of the UN, but I would like to point out that if making remarks about 'wiping Israel off the map' is enough to do so, I can point out almost two dozen arab nations that need out.

I never said that I thought they should be kicked out. ;) Just said that they shouldn't be kicked out for denying the Holocaust.

Kick them out because the government denies the Holocaust? Nah, don't think so... But then again, I'm opposed to sending holocaust deniers to jail - it's a freedom of speech-thing.

If there is a reason to kick them out in this case, it's because they want to have Israel "wiped off the map". (It's not polite to do so in international politics, you know.)
Why should anyone be sent to jail for denying the holocaust? :confused: Its one's right to interpret history as they like, falacious as their views may be.

Geez, guys, do you know what you're talking about? THE UN! Man, I can't believe it... Do you even know what this organisation is?

UN is an organisation that has a single goal: diplomacy and understanding, to keep peace in THE WHOLE WORLD. It's not an elitist organisation, where every democracy has a right of speech. It's an organisation that favors the negociations among nations. It has done many things to control dictatorships: it's the UN investigators that were watching Saddam Hussein's facilities to prevent him from making WMDs, for example. If there's a bad government, it's an even better reason for them to stay in the UN, since they are controlled by the international congress.

I never said that I thought they should be kicked out. ;) Just said that they shouldn't be kicked out for denying the Holocaust.

Whoops, that'll teach me to post on four hours sleep :). Completely agreed then, and sorry for the misquote.

That might do more harm than good; if we kick them out, there's nothing the UN can even do to stop them. It would have to be done without a resolution, with the allies attacking Iran and occupying it. As much as I'd like to liberate Iran, kicking them out of the UN and its associated treaties might make things worse.

It has done many things to control dictatorships: it's the UN investigators that were watching Saddam Hussein's facilities to prevent him from making WMDs, for example. If there's a bad government, it's an even better reason for them to stay in the UN, since they are controlled by the international congress.
And done many things to NOT control dictatorships: Oil-For-Food, failure to condemn the Rwanda and Sudan genocides, UN troops rape and abuse of women in the Congo, to name a few....oh, and forget being controlled by an international congress. That's an undeniable breach of national sovereignty. Don't get me wrong, I hate dictatorships and all but sovereignty is pretty much sacrosanct IMHO.

Geez, guys, do you know what you're talking about? THE UN! Man, I can't believe it... Do you even know what this organisation is?

UN is an organisation that has a single goal: diplomacy and understanding, to keep peace in THE WHOLE WORLD. It's not an elitist organisation, where every democracy has a right of speech. It's an organisation that favors the negociations among nations. It has done many things to control dictatorships: it's the UN investigators that were watching Saddam Hussein's facilities to prevent him from making WMDs, for example. If there's a bad government, it's an even better reason for them to stay in the UN, since they are controlled by the international congress.

Sadly those "bad governments" can influence the policy and the actions of the UN. You want world peace, start the final Crusade. A Crusade against dictatorships.

Holocaust deniers go to jail
:confused:

:confused:

Why should we let Holocaust deniers promote their distorted view of history and risk letting it happen again? Not that it hasn't already.....

Why should we let Holocaust deniers promote their distorted view of history and risk letting it happen again? Not that it hasn't already.....

The same reason we let hate groups like the KKK call themselves 'charitable Christian organizations': freedom of speech. And be careful with comparing modern times to the Holocaust...

Why should we let Holocaust deniers promote their distorted view of history and risk letting it happen again? Not that it hasn't already.....
It's called freedom of speech.

Why should we let Holocaust deniers promote their distorted view of history and risk letting it happen again? Not that it hasn't already.....
Denying the holocaust is not the same as asking for it to be repeated. In addition, people are right to their freedom of speech, so long as they are not actively inciting violence. It is an historian's right to put forward his theories and attempt to prove them. Censorship results to distortion of history.

:confused:

In Germany and Austria publically denying the holocaust, or minimizing the extent of the holocaust, is a crime which can result in a jail sentence.

Of course, outright anti-semitism, and pretending that responsiblity for Hilter and WII should really be laid at the feet of france is still perfectly okay.

Not that I am against the law for the germans per se. They can be awfully creative about history when it suits them.

It's called freedom of speech.

I call it a reasonable limit. Which is allowed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I call it a reasonable limit. Which is allowed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Then your Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a crock of shit.

You can't just ban somebody from saying something if you don't like it. That's just as bad as those who you are banning.

In Germany and Austria publically denying the holocaust, or minimizing the extent of the holocaust, is a crime which can result in a jail sentence.

Of course, outright anti-semitism, and pretending that responsiblity for Hilter and WII should really be laid at the feet of france is still perfectly okay.

Not that I am against the law for the germans per se. They can be awfully creative about history when it suits them.
I will disagree. History should be open to interpretation. Censorship in all its forms, unless to prevent incitement of violence, is useless. If one German gets "creative", another will disprove his/her theories. Censoring an opinion robs us of the ability to learn how to better defend ourselves against it.

Then your Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a crock of shit.

You can't just ban somebody from saying something if you don't like it. That's just as bad as those who you are banning.

Maybe you should read the Charter before you judge it. We can never wash the blood of Genocide from our hands, that is why we must always remember it and never let anyone deny it because of the remote chance that their views might become popular.

And done many things to NOT control dictatorships: Oil-For-Food, failure to condemn the Rwanda and Sudan genocides, UN troops rape and abuse of women in the Congo, to name a few....oh, and forget being controlled by an international congress. That's an undeniable breach of national sovereignty. Don't get me wrong, I hate dictatorships and all but sovereignty is pretty much sacrosanct IMHO.

Okay, I know they did bad deeds. But controlling the conflict USA-USSR during the cold war? Avoiding WW3? Making a bridge between the nuclear superpowers, so they don't aim at each other.

I'm in for the international union. We're all humans, we should all have the right to be represented in the same chamber to defend our case in front of the whole world, in any important case. I know dictatorships can influence UN's decisions, in the condition that the UN agrees with this dictatorship. If any of the countries presiding the UN (France, Russia, USA, China), no law can pass, no action can be taken. The influence of a dictatorship of the UN only works if 66% of the countries agree. It's not an anti-UN thread, it's a thread about whether or not we should have the right to kick out a country of the UNITED NATIONS. I think not, because their goal is not to discriminate between good and bad, but to favor the speech of diplomacy and understanding.

Maybe you should read the Charter before you judge it. We can never wash the blood of Genocide from our hands, that is why we must always remember it and never let anyone deny it because of the remote chance that their views might become popular.
Welcome to fascism, population: you.

Welcome to fascism, population: you.

I am facist because I do not believe holocaust deniers have a right to spread their lies? I am no facist, and all I have to say to you now is go to hell asshole. I have very strong views about Holocaust deniers; anyone who has seen pictures/film of the Holocaust should understand this. I feel just as strongly about intervening to stop Genocide and others forms of ethnic cleansing.

Welcome to fascism, population: you.
Come off it.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
That's the point. The Constitutional State must be inviolable. The Weimar Republic wasn't, and anti-democratic parties were allowed. Won't happen again.

Denying the Holocaust falls into the same category.

Honestly? We should kick EVERYONE out of the UN and tell everyone to fuck off if they're not going to stop being stupid.

I will disagree. History should be open to interpretation. Censorship in all its forms, unless to prevent incitement of violence, is useless. If one German gets "creative", another will disprove his/her theories. Censoring an opinion robs us of the ability to learn how to better defend ourselves against it.

I agree in principle too. I think everyone has the right to hold any opinion they want about anything. No matter how stupid. The only restrictions I would put on speech would be time, manner and place, so as to prevent incitement to right, violence &c.

The Germans and Austrians do not though. They have decided that holocaust denying should be a crime.

Actually, I don't really care what they do, as long as they don't significantly re-arm.

Welcome to fascism, population: you.

fas·cism Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


That's the American Heritage definition of facism, and I don't quite think it matches Novoga's post.

I agree in principle too. I think everyone has the right to hold any opinion they want about anything. No matter how stupid. The only restrictions I would put on speech would be time, manner and place, so as to prevent incitement to right, violence &c.

The Germans and Austrians do not though. They have decided that holocaust denying should be a crime.

Actually, I don't really care what they do, as long as they don't significantly re-arm.
They should re-arm in the future. History is now behind us. Enough dwelling in the past.

Welcome to fascism, population: you.

Do you know what fascism is, at least?

It was a popular movement based on the cult of an individual, who had all the rights, and the population, none. It condemns social policies and calms the political unrest by nationalism. You go too far by calling people fascists. I agree with the fact that Iran should be condemned for their actions, because you are free of speech. So if you hear somebody yell: "Heï Fuhrër!" in the subway, you must let him. If you hear somebody tell you: "you're a peace of crap", you don't have the right to react, since he has the freedom of speech.

Extreme freedom is absurd if the human mind cannot follow it.

I am facist because I do not believe holocaust deniers have a right to spread their lies? I am no facist, and all I have to say to you now is go to hell asshole.
Yup.

If you want to espouse a belief in free speech etc. and attack other ideologies because they wouldn't allow free speech....then it isn't a very good idea to stifle free speech yourself.

Come off it.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

That's the point. The Constitutional State must be inviolable. The Weimar Republic wasn't, and anti-democratic parties were allowed. Won't happen again.

Denying the Holocaust falls into the same category.
What? And you think that makes it any better that you are undermining freedom of speech?

His religion even says that Israel owns the land. Why doesn't he give some Iran to the Kurds...or the Palestinians?

That's the American Heritage definition of facism, and I don't quite think it matches Novoga's post.
"suppression of the opposition through...censorship"

Tada.

And I don't generally go by dictionaries for definitions, after all, most will tell you that marriage is something between a man and a woman. That is blatantly not true, as in some countries it can be between two men, or two women. So, I prefer to use my own definitions that I have learned over the course of experience, rather than what some book tells me.

Do you know what fascism is, at least?
Yes. Very definitely. I have studied it alot, both at school and in University.

It was a popular movement based on the cult of an individual, who had all the rights, and the population, none. It condemns social policies and calms the political unrest by nationalism. You go too far by calling people fascists. I agree with the fact that Iran should be condemned for their actions, because you are free of speech. So if you hear somebody yell: "Heï Fuhrër!" in the subway, you must let him. If you hear somebody tell you: "you're a peace of crap", you don't have the right to react, since he has the freedom of speech.

Extreme freedom is absurd if the human mind cannot follow it.
I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Yup.

If you want to espouse a belief in free speech etc. and attack other ideologies because they wouldn't allow free speech....then it isn't a very good idea to stifle free speech yourself.

It is a reasonable limit on free speech, many nations have such reasonable limits. They are designed to protect identifiable groups of people; at least in Canada. When one denys the Holocaust, one is promoting hatred against Jews because Holocaust deniers seem to believe that it is part of huge Jewish conspiracy. In Canada, we outlaw hate material/media against identifiable groups of people and I believe denying the Holocaust would fall under that.

What? And you think that makes it any better that you are undermining freedom of speech?

It's like saying "we can say all we want". I don't think so. As I think that the news reports should always be true. I don't want, for example, a journalist to talk about aliens coming to Australia if it wasn't true. However, many broadcasters defended their false press cases with freedom of speech. You have the right to say anything you want.

You then have the right to discriminate publicly, encourage prejudice, racism, and so on. You can't condemn racist terms, people who insult you, prejudice, etc. Why's that? Because people are free to say what they want. You can't condemn anti-semitist speech.

If you really believe in freedom of speech, then you can't say I have no right to say "Freedom of speech is stupid". That's where there's a problem...

In most cases, denial of the holocaust cannot be equated to incitement of hatred against all Jews. We have the right not to take their claims of what happened at face value, perhaps for fear of them being biased. Thus, if one wishes to argue that the holocaust is exaggerated, they have the right to do so, so long as they can find proof.

It is a reasonable limit on free speech, many nations have such reasonable limits. They are designed to protect identifiable groups of people; at least in Canada.
Just because "many nations" have 'reasonable limits' on free speech doesn't make it right.

When one denys the Holocaust, one is promoting hatred against Jews
That is an appalling jump in logic.

I could very easily say I don't believe the Holocaust happened, and not have any hatred or malice towards Jews.

Not that Jews were the only people killed in the Holocaust, of course, let's not forget those persecuted for saying something the Nazis didn't like...

Just because "many nations" have 'reasonable limits' on free speech doesn't make it right.


That is an appalling jump in logic.

I could very easily say I don't believe the Holocaust happened, and not have any hatred or malice towards Jews.

Not that Jews were the only people killed in the Holocaust, of course, let's not forget those persecuted for saying something the Nazis didn't like...
Agreed on all accounts. History is at its best when in enjoyment of the free speech of all those who wish to contribute to it.

You then have the right to discriminate publicly, encourage prejudice, racism, and so on. You can't condemn racist terms, people who insult you, prejudice, etc. Why's that? Because people are free to say what they want. You can't condemn anti-semitist speech.
Perfectly fine.

What would be wrong, however, would be to discriminate on the basis of your prejudices. Actually saying something shouldn't be outlawed, but acting on it should.

Just because "many nations" have 'reasonable limits' on free speech doesn't make it right.


That is an appalling jump in logic.

I could very easily say I don't believe the Holocaust happened, and not have any hatred or malice towards Jews.

Not that Jews were the only people killed in the Holocaust, of course, let's not forget those persecuted for saying something the Nazis didn't like...

I never said that it was only Jews killed during the Holocaust, millions of non-Jews were killed as well. But, when one thinks of the Holocaust it is generally the murder of Jews that comes first to mind. You may not believe that denying the Holocaust incites hatred against the Jews, but I do.

I'm not really sure what your point is here.
I'm saying calling somebody a fascist because he believes that people cannot have all the freedom they want is totally erroneous. I think I mentionned what fascism is. It's a nationalist, racist, anti-freedom, not socially-minded government. Being anti-freedom doesn't mean "being against racist, discriminatory speech." I'm for freedom of speech, as long as it remains respectuous of mankind, and as long as it's true.

Not only Iran but China North Korea Sadi Arabia, Syria, and anyother nation that's not a demorcracy.


... and defeat the whole purpose of having a UN.

You may not believe that denying the Holocaust incites hatred against the Jews, but I do.
How does that possibly make any sense at all?

It is not 100% given that denying the holocaust = hating Jews.

Perfectly fine.

What would be wrong, however, would be to discriminate on the basis of your prejudices. Actually saying something shouldn't be outlawed, but acting on it should.

However, when you say it, you encourage people to think it is right. That's where there's a problem.

And I still have the right, according to the freedom of speech, to say that "Freedom of speech doesn't work". Now there's a problem.

However, when you say it, you encourage people to think it is right. That's where there's a problem.

And I still have the right, according to the freedom of speech, to say that "Freedom of speech doesn't work". Now there's a problem.
One could equally ignore your statement. :)

What? And you think that makes it any better that you are undermining freedom of speech?
Yes, yes it does.

I don't expect you to understand, because I think Germany is the only country in history that actually admitted to the atrocities it committed and worked to deal with them.
It is something the country can be proud of, and allowing some idiot to undermine that is not cool.

I'm not sure whether "Consitutional State" is a good translation for the concept of "Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)"...a quick google search finds me that the commonly used academic translation is "rule of law".

The relatively unique experience of Weimar Germany, were a democratic country willingly chose to abandon democracy, was in everyone's mind when they started the Federal Republic, and it is the prime reason for why anti-democratic, or anti-constitutional movements are cracked down upon so hard.
A limitation of freedom of speech? Probably, but ultimately one worthwhile.

And just in case you want to confirm that, it is Section 130 of the German Criminal Code.

Not only Iran but China North Korea Sadi Arabia, Syria, and anyother nation that's not a demorcracy.

Like America, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, you get my point.

How does that possibly make any sense at all?

It is not 100% given that denying the holocaust = hating Jews.

The majority the deny the Holocaust are against the Jews.

It is a reasonable limit on free speech, many nations have such reasonable limits. They are designed to protect identifiable groups of people; at least in Canada. When one denys the Holocaust, one is promoting hatred against Jews because Holocaust deniers seem to believe that it is part of huge Jewish conspiracy. In Canada, we outlaw hate material/media against identifiable groups of people and I believe denying the Holocaust would fall under that.

I am glad that the US leaves such things to the marketplace of ideas. If someone denies the Holocaust, the solution is to correct them -- not to oppress them.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree

The majority the deny the Holocaust are against the Jews.
Then treat those cases on an individual basis. Do not usurp the freedom of speech for the actions of racists.

One could equally ignore your statement. :)

Yes, how's that for somebody who doesn't? You have to think both ways. If you find a mistake in one place, then your whole issue is wrong. And you can't say that opinion and speech have nothing in common.

Here are some quick facts... I hope you understand this, I think this is pretty simple:

A racist speech incites racism (ain't that right!)
A discrimanatory speech incites discrimination (at least it won't incite tolerance)

Fancy that! Two stones with one bird...


Yes, yes. Ahmadinejad's comments are always good conversation starters, but if you knew what Iranian politics is all about (as I suspect you all do), you shouldn't take them at face value.

The sad/happy fact is that power in Iran is not held by the president and his government, but by the spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. It's true that this conservative leader helped the über-conservative Ahmadinejad win the elections and to power. He did that in order to defeat the reformers and not to give up his power to any new political leader.

Ahmy, as I like to call him, now spouts these sound bytes (wipe Israel off the map, Holocaust-schmolocaust) because
1) He is diplomatically even more inexperience that Bush Jr.
2) Wants to turn back the tide of eight years of reform politics on the part of his moderate and popular predecessor Mohammed Khatami. To mark that there is a new guy around, if you want... 'Spirit of the revolution!'

Long story short: He has an irreconcilable tone, but he is pretty much a pussy. Take this for example: Hashemi Rafsanjani (Raffy), former president and Ahmadinejad's main rival for the presidency. He was a pragmatic man who cut many deals with the USA... you'd think Ahmy would have tossed him aside. Wrong. As soon as the elections were over KHAMENEI appointed him as the head the Expediency Council (has the task of settling conflicts between the different governmental and legislative institutions, in case you didn't know). In this position Raffy often has more power than the feared president Ahmy.

All this barking is primarily an attempt to make his mark with public opinion in his own country; the economy is struggling and it's the president who is getting the blame for that, so strong rhetoric is in order. Green as he is, his staff has to limit the damage around the globe. The funny thing is that after the Iranian embassies all over the world had to excuse for his 'wipe Israel..' speech, the president himself stuck to his original wording.
I see a great future for him.

Is he someone you need to take THAT seriously...? Prolly (most certainly) not.

However, when you say it, you encourage people to think it is right. That's where there's a problem.

And I still have the right, according to the freedom of speech, to say that "Freedom of speech doesn't work". Now there's a problem.
Hows that a problem? They can say that all the want.

Yes, how's that for somebody who doesn't? You have to think both ways. If you find a mistake in one place, then your whole issue is wrong. And you can't say that opinion and speech have nothing in common.

Here are some quick facts... I hope you understand this, I think this is pretty simple:

A racist speech incites racism (ain't that right!)
A discrimanatory incites discrimination (at least it won't incite tolerance)
Don't attempt patronising me.

You are assuming all holocaust deniers are racist, and that all racists are violent, genocidal nutcases. Neither leap in logic is correct.

Yes, yes it does.

I don't expect you to understand, because I think Germany is the only country in history that actually admitted to the atrocities it committed and worked to deal with them.
It is something the country can be proud of, and allowing some idiot to undermine that is not cool.

I'm not sure whether "Consitutional State" is a good translation for the concept of "Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)"...a quick google search finds me that the commonly used academic translation is "rule of law".

The relatively unique experience of Weimar Germany, were a democratic country willingly chose to abandon democracy, was in everyone's mind when they started the Federal Republic, and it is the prime reason for why anti-democratic, or anti-constitutional movements are cracked down upon so hard.
A limitation of freedom of speech? Probably, but ultimately one worthwhile.

And just in case you want to confirm that, it is Section 130 of the German Criminal Code.

And? Good for Germany for facing up to its past, but in my eyes that still doesn't excuse cutting freedom of speech.

The majority the deny the Holocaust are against the Jews.
Prove it.

Also explain to me why if some are like that, the whole should be punished?

Prove it.

Also explain to me why if some are like that, the whole should be punished?
Precisely. Individual cases should be judged on their own merits (or demerits lol).

Found the text in German:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/BJNR001270871BJNE028206377.html#BJNR001270871BJNE028206377

And? Good for Germany for facing up to its past, but in my eyes that still doesn't excuse cutting freedom of speech.
It's part of it.
The laws fall under an area titled "Volksverhetzung" (translation (http://www.dict.cc/?s=volksverhetzung) as demagoguery or incitement of the people), and explicitly target those that try that deny Nazi-Crimes in a public fashion that is deemed to be for the purposes of demagoguery.
And a smaller punishment for those that accept that the crimes happened, but publicly approve of them.

Simply a matter of protecting the democratic system.

It's part of it.
The laws fall under an area titled "Volksverhetzung" (translation (http://www.dict.cc/?s=volksverhetzung) as demagoguery or incitement of the people), and explicitly target those that try that deny Nazi-Crimes in a public fashion that is deemed to be for the purposes of demagoguery.
And a smaller punishment for those that accept that the crimes happened, but publicly approve of them.

Simply a matter of protecting the democratic system.
By denying freedom of expression? :p

A racist speech incites racism (ain't that right!)
A discrimanatory speech incites discrimination (at least it won't incite tolerance)

No, these are not facts.

Particularly if the racist speech is countered in the marketplace of ideas with anti-racist speech.

One doesn't win the debate simply by trying to silence one's opponents. It is ineffective, unfair, undemocratic, and dangerous to try.

By denying freedom of expression? :p
By denying people the right to openly attack the democratic system. Yes.

No, these are not facts.

Particularly if the racist speech is countered in the marketplace of ideas with anti-racist speech.

One doesn't win the debate simply by trying to silence one's opponents. It is ineffective, unfair, undemocratic, and dangerous to try.
Hear Hear :)

By denying people the right to openly attack the democratic system. Yes.
And the democratic system is too weak to fend off criticism? It needs to shell itself from it?

It's part of it.
The laws fall under an area titled "Volksverhetzung" (translation (http://www.dict.cc/?s=volksverhetzung) as demagoguery or incitement of the people), and explicitly target those that try that deny Nazi-Crimes in a public fashion that is deemed to be for the purposes of demagoguery.
And a smaller punishment for those that accept that the crimes happened, but publicly approve of them.

Simply a matter of protecting the democratic system.

Although the reason for such laws may be more compelling in Germany, one cannot protect democracy by being tyrannical.

By denying people the right to openly attack the democratic system. Yes.

I'm posting this quote again in hope you will pause to read it.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Democracy, openness, free expression, etc. are not weakness that must be protected from themselves.

It's part of it.
The laws fall under an area titled "Volksverhetzung" (translation (http://www.dict.cc/?s=volksverhetzung) as demagoguery or incitement of the people), and explicitly target those that try that deny Nazi-Crimes in a public fashion that is deemed to be for the purposes of demagoguery.
And a smaller punishment for those that accept that the crimes happened, but publicly approve of them.

Simply a matter of protecting the democratic system.
Protecting the democratic system by denying people the right of free speech?

Protecting the democratic system through the suppression of opposing ideas?

If that's the way it is, it looks like the democratic system might need protecting from itself.

Thank god I don't live in Germany. The UK's bad enough, though.

Protecting the democratic system by denying people the right of free speech?

Protecting the democratic system through the suppression of opposing ideas?

If that's the way it is, it looks like the democratic system might need protecting from itself.

Thank god I don't live in Germany. The UK's bad enough, though.
All too true :(

Democracy, openness, free expression, etc. are not weakness that must be protected from themselves.
I did read it, and I thought I'd addressed it with the Weimar example.

Of course democracy needs to be protected from those that want to bring it down. It happened once, and there is no actual reason for why it shouldn't happen again (other than your personal unwavering belief in it, which some may not share).

Weimar allowed the free trade of ideas, and the idea that won kinda killed about 80 million people.

If the price of not letting this happen again is to shut a few Neo-Nazis up, then I will pay that price.

The law does not say "The Government considers this and this and this to be okay, and regulates what you say."
The law says that calling for harm of others, defamation and trying to undermine the democratic system in the Federal Republic are not things that will be tolerated. No more, no less.

I did read it, and I thought I'd addressed it with the Weimar example.

Of course democracy needs to be protected from those that want to bring it down. It happened once, and there is no actual reason for why it shouldn't happen again (other than your personal unwavering belief in it, which some may not share).

Weimar allowed the free trade of ideas, and the idea that won kinda killed about 80 million people.

If the price of not letting this happen again is to shut a few Neo-Nazis up, then I will pay that price.
Weimar also suffered from a number of problems, such as the inefficiency of its proportional representation system. It was far more fragile than modern democracies.

You do realise that suppressing freedoms leads to the government further suppressing freedoms, only to become tyrannical. Its not a desirable situation.

I did read it, and I thought I'd addressed it with the Weimar example.

Of course democracy needs to be protected from those that want to bring it down. It happened once, and there is no actual reason for why it shouldn't happen again (other than your personal unwavering belief in it, which some may not share).

Weimar allowed the free trade of ideas, and the idea that won kinda killed about 80 million people.

If the price of not letting this happen again is to shut a few Neo-Nazis up, then I will pay that price.

When they came for ...

Weimar also suffered from a number of problems, such as the inefficiency of its proportional representation system. It was far more fragile than modern democracies.
I agree, and in Germany at least one reason are laws like these.
Weimar had a large anti-democratic opposition - had such a thing not been allowed, there could not have been the kind of turmoil that followed, with street battles, lyinchings and anti-semitism.

You do realise that suppressing freedoms leads to the government further suppressing freedoms, only to become tyrannical. Its not a desirable situation.
That's the point. The laws are framed in a way that do not allow a government to do that.
Read the very first line of the German constitution - "The dignity of a human being is inviolable". Hate-Speech attacks that most basic principle of the Federal Republic.

When they came for ...
Sorry, I don't get it. English is still my second language...

I agree, and in Germany at least one reason are laws like these.
Weimar had a large anti-democratic opposition - had such a thing not been allowed, there could not have been the kind of turmoil that followed, with street battles, lyinchings and anti-semitism.

You cannot stop people from opposing a democracy though. If they want a tyranny, and democratically choose this, its their own choice ultimately.

You cannot stop people from opposing a democracy though. If they want a tyranny, and democratically choose this, its their own choice ultimately.
Sure, but the point of the Republican system is to prevent a simple dictatorship by the majority.
There need to be certain rules that are above majority rulings...it's got a bit to do with game theory, but the point is that this is the reason we have constitutions (although Britain doesn't have one explicitly).

Sorry, I don't get it. English is still my second language...


Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.


When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...#Poem

Sure, but the point of the Republican system is to prevent a simple dictatorship by the majority.
There need to be certain rules that are above majority rulings...it's got a bit to do with game theory, but the point is that this is the reason we have constitutions (although Britain doesn't have one explicitly).
I still think this is not necessary nowadays. As Cat-Tribes said, the free exchange of ideas would suppress viral publications.

-snip-
Oh, yeah, that one. They know that outside Germany too?

Well, my point stands. This is not simply about picking a group (Neo-Nazis) and beating on them, it is about keeping down the sort of mentality that will advocate picking on a group.

It has worked well over all these years, Germany is still not a dictatorship and if most people didn't want the laws, they could be abolished. But at this point, they still seem to enjoy support from Parliament and the Public.

Oh, yeah, that one. They know that outside Germany too?

Well, my point stands. This is not simply about picking a group (Neo-Nazis) and beating on them, it is about keeping down the sort of mentality that will advocate picking on a group.

It has worked well over all these years, Germany is still not a dictatorship and if most people didn't want the laws, they could be abolished. But at this point, they still seem to enjoy support from Parliament and the Public.

But you are picking a group and denying them free speech. You are oppressing them.

What stops you from oppressing other groups with ideas you don't like?

But you are picking a group and denying them free speech. You are oppressing them.
If by "a group" you mean everyone who will advocate the slaughter of certain parts of society, or the abandoning of democracy as a way of running the country, then yes.
But it does not target specific political ideologies, ethnic groups or otherwise. Anti-democratic communist groups have met with the same resistance.

But then again, we also crack down on the group of murderers.

What stops you from oppressing other groups with ideas you don't like?
The law (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/BJNR001270871BJNE028206377.html#BJNR001270871BJNE028206377). It only concerns:

zum Haß gegen Teile der Bevölkerung aufstachelt oder zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen gegen sie auffordert oder
Advocating Hate and Violence towards parts of the population.

die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, daß er Teile der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
Attacking the dignity of groups by defamation and the like.

Schriften (§ 11 Abs. 3), die zum Haß gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihr Volkstum bestimmte Gruppe aufstacheln, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen gegen sie auffordern oder die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreifen, daß Teile der Bevölkerung oder eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich gemacht oder verleumdet werden,
Spreading media that advocates the above.

(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
Whoever approves of, denies or plays down the Holocaust and other Nazi Crimes, publicly, and in a way that can be interpreted as threatening public order (all things that have to be proven).

(4) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung den öffentlichen Frieden in einer die Würde der Opfer verletzenden Weise dadurch stört, dass er die nationalsozialistische Gewalt- und Willkürherrschaft billigt, verherrlicht oder rechtfertigt.
Whoever approves of, justifies or glorifies the Nazi Rule, again publicly, and in a way that can be interpreted as threatening public order.

And again the same goes for distributing media to that effect.

Great situation you have there:

Say you won't tolerate nazis - "Why not!? They deserve a voice too! What are you? A Nazi?"

Say you let them say what they will - "Why did you let him/her say that for?!? You Germans never learned anything... You are all Nazis!"

This thread makes me glad that I live in the USA. I cannot see a good reason to do anything but ignore those who deny the holocaust.

I guess things are just different here. In general, the greatest moral blemish on American history is slavery. Yet we do not ignore it and hide from it in paranoia. The KKK has parades and marches in many cities - and it is perfectly legal. Do their speeches and remarks incite racism? Absolutely. Is this illegal? No. Why? Because racism and discrimination are not illegal. It's not even illegal to advocate changing the system. There is a communist party in America, and, I think there may be a fascist party as well. No opinion is illegal here - and I wouldn't have it any other way. As soon as you try to prevent the free exchange of all ideas, you have breached freedom of speech.

I don't believe that the people of modern democratic and free nations are nearly so stupid as to repeat such actions as the Holocaust. I don't believe that they should be sheltered from destructive ideas as if they were little children.

In the end, none of us [here on this thread] is advocating a complete overthrow of democracy. It is a question of where freedom of speech should stop - not whether or not it should exist. I believe that a penalty for holocaust-denial crosses the line in a completely unacceptable fashion.