EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

[Robson]

Poll question: EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.

Diplomats in Brussels voiced confidence on Tuesday that the controversial plan, which has been the subject of heated debate for six years, will be endorsed by member states. However, the Baltic countries and Poland are still holding out for an inclusion of “Stalinist crimes” alongside the Holocaust in the text – a move that is being resisted by the majority of other EU countries.

<Snip>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html

[Matsubara]

1. Disagree.

Criminalizing it will only add credibility to altra-right wing groups claims that their freedoms are being "oppressed". Better leave them be to spew their nonsense and expose them for the nutjobs they are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. I think that since it was Europe that suffered the direct impact of the

the Nazi and Soviet regimes, they should handle this is whatever way suits them best.

That said, if the EU were to vote to make holocaust denial the official policy, I'd raise whatever little holy hell I could in protest.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Given their *specific* history, it's not inappropriate.

[DCKit]

4. Yet we're SO close to criminalizing non-PC speech in this country. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

5. Aaaah.... the clarion-call of racism enablers and defenders.

[DCKit]

6. Sorry, I'm just not so far to the left yet that I believe that anyone who doesn't share my opinions

belongs in a prison cell. However, I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Being of Polish Orthodox Catholic/Jewish descent, I have made a point to learn about the Holocaust, but I doubt if anything I can say will alter the prejudice you've developed over a single statement.

This country was built on debate and reason with a healthy dose of physical confrontation, I don't think being PC on any issue is ever going to help us grow farther. It's just another form of fascism.

[Alexander]

9. Free speech isn't "left vs. right". It's "state control vs. libertarianism".

Lots of people of all stripes want to ban or severely restrict free speech. It has nothing to do with the left-right spectrum.

I agree with most of your post, however keep in mind this is the EU, not the USA, that is doing this. They don't have Amendment I of the Bill of Rights over there.

[Robson]

11. The question is tolerance vs. intolerance

Does anyone disagree that liberalism has "tolerance" in its ideological roots? Conversely conservatism and fascism is often said to have its roots in "intolerance".

One can't proclaim to be liberal in philosophy while supporting 3 years in jail for someone who happens to espouse a different view, regardless of what that view might be. The world has experienced many atrocities, some worse than others and to single out any one of these events as intellectually "untouchable" is wrong.

These types of laws represent a very slippery slope that will lead somewhere where freedom loving people don't want to be.

[Slyder]

7. Don't criminalize thought!

It was Elizabeth I of England who said that she did not want windows into the minds of men. She was speaking about matters of religion. For better or worse, free speech means free speech. Deny the Holocaust if you must, but the evidence is rather overwhelming. Rather like denying the existence of the ocean or believing the world is flat. Let them babble and look silly. Or should we make belief in creationism and Ptolemaic astronomy illegal too? Or, conversely, belief in evolution? I don't like setting these kinds of precedents. Adding additional penalties for "hate" crimes bothers me too. The act of vandalism, assault, battery, or whatever should be crime enough. I, as a 21st century American, do no want windows into the minds of men lest someone want to look into mine!

[Alexander]

8. EU does not have our Bill of Rights guaranteeing free speech.

I would be totally opposed to this if it were the United States.

But it's Europe, and if they feel this is the best way to prevent any future Hitlers, more power to them.

Given the recent revival of anti-Semitism in Europe, and the article from the other day reporting German soldiers being trained to visualize "American blacks" when they kill (still sore over Jesse Owens?), I'm for anything that will prevent a future Nazi regime.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. Parts of Europe have tolerated speech

England and France, usually.

Spain, recently.

Germany, not so much.

But it's their continent. I know they don't have anything like our Second Amendment, or the Fourth or Fifth. So why would they have the First?

However, it wasn't freedom of speech that gave rise to Hitler. I think it was more the economic conditions that resulted from the Treaty of Versailles.

If Turkey joins NATO, and the EU, as they've been attemting, will it be against the law to deny the Armenian Genocide? I think that was Hitler's model for thinking he could do a holocaust.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I agree with Poland

that if they do it, they should include Stalinism. Probably throw in denial of the Armenian genocide as well. Overall though, I think it's a very bad idea.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Not quite happening: "only if the effect is incitement to violence or hatred"

European interior ministers have agreed to make incitement racism an EU-wide crime, but have stopped short of a blanket ban on Holocaust denial.

The agreement makes it an offence to condone or grossly trivialise crimes of genocide - but only if the effect is incitement to violence or hatred.

The deal follows six years of talks, and will disappoint Germany, which pushed hard for a Holocaust-denial law.

Berlin has also had to drop a proposal for an EU-wide ban on Nazi symbols.

The European Network Against Racism said most European countries already had laws against incitement to racism, and the "weak text" would enable many of them to leave their legal codes unchanged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6573005.stm

[Robson]

14. Thanks for update

It appears that they've toned down the law slightly. My personal view is that I oppose any censorship except in the most extreme cases where it is directed towards a class of victims that would most definitely result in their bodily harm. Also oppose any child pornography.

[JackRiddler]

15. The Polish "objection" shows where this leads...

Incitement to violence is already amply covered by the law. Now what qualifies as trivializing Stalinism, as the decidely right-wing nationalist Polish government would define it? What if you fail to support some right-winger's inflated estimate of how many victims Stalin claimed, does that become a crime? What about denying the crimes of the Inquisition? I have met people in Europe - leftists - who would like to criminalize 9/11 skepticism! If you start specifying which speech is criminal - you'll end up with everything either prohibited or compulsory. I can see this for Germany alone and its very own Nazi genocide, but one step beyond that and you're on the slippery slope. This isn't a European question, either - it's about the most basic of political rights for all people: to say really stupid and objectionable things, if you believe them, without fearing prosecution and imprisonment.