International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

[ringworm]

Does Ahmadinejad really beleive himself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Visi on_of_the_Holocaust

And a great cast of characters were invited as well

American David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and one-time Knights of the Ku Klux Klan leader, attended the conference. French writer Georges Thiel, who had been convicted under Holocaust denial laws in France, attended, as did Fredrick Töben of Australia who had been imprisoned in Germany for three months in 1999 for Holocaust denial.[6][7] Discredited French academic Robert Faurisson also attended,[8] as well as Ahmed Rami, a Swedish-Moroccan Holocaust denier who was imprisoned in Sweden for inciting racial hatred.[9]

An Israeli Arab lawyer, Khaled Kasab Mahameed, was denied permission to attend the conference by Iran after the discovery of his holding Israeli citizenship. He had been previously, repeatedly, invited to attend by the Iranian government;[13] however Iran does not grant visas to Israelis.

http://www.local12.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=E1EB36AC-66D6-4617-9738-740E1EC59431
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, said, "I want to tell the western countries just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."
Did he just get mis-quoted or mis-translated AGAIN or can anybody see a trend with his threats?



http://www.isracast.com/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=304
British Prime-Minister Tony Blair has launched a powerful attack on Iran, accusing the regime in Tehran of posing a "major strategic threat" to the stability of the Middle East. The Prime Minister said he found it "shocking beyond belief" that the Iranians had organised a conference questioning whether the Nazis had really killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.

[griftadan]

i think i'll agree with him just to stir **** up.

[Mr. Ron]

As much of this is crazy, I think the laws in Europe for arresting people for expressing thier points of views is very dangerous.

[Hababi]

As much of this is crazy, I think the laws in Europe for arresting people for expressing thier points of views is very dangerous.

Eh I don't think I'd say dangerous. I think Sweden's anti-free speech laws are much more dangerous and invasive than the anti Holocaust denial laws. After all, there is a recent history of attempts to exterminate Jews, on the part of Europeans. There isn't the same for gays in Sweden.

[Mr. Ron]

Eh I don't think I'd say dangerous. I think Sweden's anti-free speech laws are much more dangerous and invasive than the anti Holocaust denial laws. After all, there is a recent history of attempts to exterminate Jews, on the part of Europeans. There isn't the same for gays in Sweden.

Wait, are you talking recently?



Anyways, a person should not be arrested for their ideas. That is fascism.

[Electronic Wolf]

I don't think people should be arrested for holocaust denial, but they shouldn't expect to be respected or win people over because it's offensive (in my opinion) and retarded.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't think people should be arrested for holocaust denial, but they shouldn't expect to be respected or win people over because it's offensive (in my opinion) and retarded.

Well, of course.

[ringworm]

Where exactly is it breaking a law to deny the holocaust?

This happens in Europe? I never knew this. wow

And without knowing much about Sweden, they have anti-speech laws too?

Man, I need to read more…

[Mr. Ron]

Where exactly is it breaking a law to deny the holocaust?

This happens in Europe? I never knew this. wow

And without knowing much about Sweden, they have anti-speech laws too?

Man, I need to read more…

They haven't really caught onto "free speech" yet.

[Zesty Mordant]

As retarded as holocaust denial is, making holocaust denial an illegal act is even more retarded because it destroys any attempt at debate with holocaust deniers in which they would be able to shed such views upon their own freewill instead of having it enforced on them.

At worst, it suggests to holocaust deniers (who tend to buy tinfoils hats by sam's club quantities) that making denial illegal just further justifies the notion that governments are trying to "cover something up".

And yeah, whatshisface (Iranian pres. whose name im not gonna try typing out) is, like most of the crap he does, is just trying to drum up some press. And unfortunately, its working.

Holocaust deniers are just like bratty children, they just want attention

[-1up!-]

Eh I don't think I'd say dangerous. I think Sweden's anti-free speech laws are much more dangerous and invasive than the anti Holocaust denial laws. After all, there is a recent history of attempts to exterminate Jews, on the part of Europeans. There isn't the same for gays in Sweden.

I'd say both examples are dangerous. Any infringement on the right to free speech is ridiculous and backwards.

[Light Fantastic]

They haven't really caught onto "free speech" yet.

Freedom of expression is in the convention on human rights it just isn't executed very well.

If you think you have complete freedom of speech in America you are mistaken.

[Zesty Mordant]

Freedom of expression is in the convention on human rights it just isn't executed very well.

If you think you have complete freedom of speech in America you are mistaken.

wait, what can't i say in america?

[Light Fantastic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

[The Stig]

But I'm allowed to say stupid crap like George Bush caused Graham Coxon to leave Blur, that Joe DiMaggio whacked RFK, or say anti-Semetic things without being arrested for saying them. It is pretty dangerous for places to put you under arrest for saying something denying the Holocaust. Sure, it is offensive to a lot of people, but Ron is correct in saying that it's facism.

[Zesty Mordant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

when (and how often) has that been used to silence someone's democratic right to freedom of speech?

In fact, in the example that the article depicted it was invoked to enhance someone's right to a freedom of speech.

[Light Fantastic]

In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot.

Also the Miller test is used all the time.

[The Stig]

Basically, you have freedom of speech as long as you don't infringe someone else's rights. Slander and libel infringe on other people, as does speech inciting riots and the like. But I'm allowed to say that the Holocaust didn't happen, even though it's stupid to do so.

[Light Fantastic]

Well, there are laws on commercial speech, which doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

[Zesty Mordant]

from my understanding though, the Miller Test is generally based on dealing with obscenity issues though (some of which can actually be harmful).

And it some situations it is actually used to allow for more freedom of speech.

Its not necessarily a provision prohibiting anything

[ringworm]

They haven't really caught onto "free speech" yet.
What are the restrictions of speech in Europe?


This blew me away if its really true
Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I donít think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes."

In another recent case, a man living in the Bunkeflo neighborhood of Malmo sent an e-mail message to public officials saying he believed most Arabs were criminals, and that he opposed subsidies for them to move into his neighborhood. "Bunkeflo," he wrote, "was one of the last few refuges in Malmo where you could go out and not see Arabs loitering all around you."

This man managed to avoid prisonóbut had to pay a fine of 10 percent of his pre-tax income. Given Swedenís high taxation rate, this represented a figure of close to 20 percent of his actual income.
This is all it takes to go to jail?

Man, and people bash America? geez

[Hababi]

Wait, are you talking recently?

Recently is a relative term--I consider 60 years to be recent (especially when you look at the grand scheme of things, historically).



Anyways, a person should not be arrested for their ideas. That is fascism.

I get what you're saying, but labelling it fascist is a misnomer. Fascism is an idealogy based on extreme nationalism, militarism, xenophobia and a percieved victim-status, with a common appeal to some historical past.

You can say it's authoritarian in nature, but I think there's an argument to be made that, given the recent history of Europe, such speech violates the clear and present danger principle.


This is all it takes to go to jail?

Haha yeah welcome to the liberal police state. Sweden's most bizarre...

[The Stig]

Man, and people bash America? geez

bekuz Jorje Bush r teh kowboy OILLL

Really, though, I find stuff like that quite hypocritical. Things like wiretaps to listen to members of the mafia and terrorist cells are allowed and Bush is Hitler. Stuff like these anti-free speech laws are acceptable, though? Beats me.

[Light Fantastic]

Um support of torture. Sorry but that's a little worse than not protecting some neo-nazis.

wiretaps to listen to members of the mafia and terrorist cells are allowed Oh, so that's what it's for. I guess these "anti free speech" laws are fine then because we only use it on the bad people. Criminals have rights too. Not that I think that's what the warrantless wire-tapping will be used for.

This is all it takes to go to jail?

Oh please. Habeus Corpus.


ilu europe

[Hababi]

Oh here's some proof of what gay groups want to get here in America:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/95434/187

"Christian Vanneste, a member of France's ruling UMP party, could face jail this coming week. If so, the 58 year-old professor of philosophy, will be the first person to be prosecuted under France's law against homophobic speech. Only last year homophobic comments were added to the existing legislation banning hate speech.

Vanneste made a series of anti-gay speeches in Parliament but they are protected by parliamentary privilege. However, he then went on to make the same remarks in newspaper interviews. In one he called gays a "threat to humanity". Vanneste defended himself by insisting that he did not say homosexuality was dangerous "only that it is inferior to heterosexuality and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind."

The public prosecutor filed charges following complaints by LGBT rights groups Act Up-Paris, SOS Homophobie and Sneg, a national umbrella organization for gay businesses.

The prosecutor said Vanneste was guilty as charged but made no recommendation on sentencing. Judgment will be handed down on January 24."

(of course the author of the kos diary likes it)

Gay groups in America want to turn the US into a left wing police state, like many European countries are becoming.

[Light Fantastic]

a left wing police state, like many European countries are becoming.Zero you have no idea what Europe is like so please stop with the hyperbole.

[Hababi]

Zero you have no idea what Europe is like so please stop with the hyperbole.

You obviously don't either when you lump every country in Europe together as a collective whole. And that's especially bad considering you live there:smash: :p

Yes, it's very different in Poland than it is in France or Sweden. Much better in Poland.

[Light Fantastic]

All of them fall under the european convention on human rights which prevents them from becoming anything like what you suggested.

[Hababi]

All of them fall under the european convention on human rights which prevents them from becoming anything like what you suggested.

Too late :p

Look, when people are fined and/or jailed for criticizing homosexuality, you have a left wing police state.

[Light Fantastic]

Zero I could say similar things about a number of American policies. One flaw in all of the freedoms we have does not equate to a police state.

[Hababi]

Zero I could say similar things about a number of American policies.

Go ahead:p

[Zesty Mordant]

ugh, the US is not gonna become a right-wing police state and Europe is not gonna become a left-wing police state, at least any time in the conceivable future. They're both democracies with certain problems that will eventually be sorted out.

Obviously a lot of Scandinavia/Europe's retarded laws seem to stem from sensitivity issues pertaining to WWII which will eventually be overcome.

[Light Fantastic]

The abolishment of Habeus Corpus has given the government just too much power, you now live in a fascist state.

See, it's just stupid.

[Mr. Ron]

ugh, the US is not gonna become a right-wing police state and Europe is not gonna become a left-wing police state, at least any time in the conceivable future. They're both democracies with certain problems that will eventually be sorted out.

Obviously a lot of Scandinavia/Europe's retarded laws seem to stem from sensitivity issues pertaining to WWII which will eventually be overcome.

Why should Europe be this sensitive, though?

[Hababi]

The abolishment of Habeus Corpus has given the government just too much power, you now live in a fascist state.

See it's just stupid.

It applies only to non citizens, intercepted on foreign soil. So the statement is incorrect :p

If we suspended habeus corpus for everyone, it would represent a slide in the direction of a police state.

[Light Fantastic]

So the statement is incorrectYeah, that was the point.

[Hababi]

Yeah, that was the point.

No see you were wrong in your representation of what happened, purely in legal terms. I was not. Habeus corpus wasn't removed for US citizens. Whereas French and Swedish citizens can be jailed for expressing condemnation of homosexuality.

[Zesty Mordant]

Why should Europe be this sensitive, though?

beats me im not a euro.

but I reckon its somewhat similar to the US's sensitivities re:affirmative action and Canada's sensitivities to bilingualism.

Every western democracy seems to have some sort of "historicial blemish" that they dwell on and thus try to even out with certain policies that sometimes just don't work.

[Mr. Ron]

I just think that's ridiculous. MOVE ON EUROPE.

[Light Fantastic]

No see you were wrong in your representation of what happened, purely in legal terms.

The enacting of such law is fascistic whether it only applies to US citizens or not.

[Hababi]

The enacting of such law is fascistic whether it only applies to US citizens or not.

I already covered why saying 'fascistic' is incorrect:smash:

[Apollyon]

As much of this is crazy, I think the laws in Europe for arresting people for expressing thier points of views is very dangerous.

The last time anti-Semites were allowed to speak freely, they took over half of Europe and killed millions of Jews. I saw execute every last one of these hateful pigs.

[Mr. Ron]

The last time anti-Semites were allowed to speak freely, they took over half of Europe and killed millions of Jews. I saw execute every last one of these hateful pigs.

Wait wait, don't you preach against this kind of government control in people lives? Then you shouldn't be mad if the government censors you, because hey, you're cool with that kind of control.

[Apollyon]

Wait wait, don't you preach against this kind of government control in people lives? Then you shouldn't be mad if the government censors you, because hey, you're cool with that kind of control.

Wait wait, can't I preach for or against whatever the hell I want to? Oh, in that case, execute all of them.

This isn't a matter of government control in my eyes, it's a matter of an almost 70-year old atrocity that these swine are still holding onto and threatening to reanimate. That merits execution as far as I'm concerned. I get the impression you would willingly allow any recurrence of the holocaust to be instigated so long as these criminals were allowed to say and do whatever the hell they want.

[Akira]

Man, you are really scary. We don't live in 1984, you can't execute someone for thinking something.
Go create your own thinkpol or something.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

was denied permission to attend the conference by Iran after the discovery of his holding Israeli citizenship.

Says it all really; nothing to do with truth and everything to do with their anti-zionist agenda.

I like it better when he just says "Down with Israel" instead of trying to mask it in some pathetic veil of knowledge.

[Apollyon]

Yes I'm scary because I demand justice and retribution while the rest of the world would rather sit on their asses and say, "No no bad nazi." We all saw how well that worked in WWII.

[Mr. Ron]

Wait wait, can't I preach for or against whatever the hell I want to? Oh, in that case, execute all of them.

This isn't a matter of government control in my eyes, it's a matter of an almost 70-year old atrocity that these swine are still holding onto and threatening to reanimate. That merits execution as far as I'm concerned. I get the impression you would willingly allow any recurrence of the holocaust to be instigated so long as these criminals were allowed to say and do whatever the hell they want.

You can say what you want, but you can't tell people what and what not to say. It's their right to free speech under our Constitution. I'm sure you wouldn't want someone killing you for saying what you believed in? Am I right?You can't just say "well they have ideas I don't like, so lets execute them!" It's so easy for you to say that because YOU are saying it. If your idea here was made law, you could die under it if you said something someone didn't like. See?


Come on Jared, you think it's possible for another holocaust to happen in today's world? Do you think any country would let that happen? I wouldn't interfere with people who are merely talking about holocaust denial, but if they acted on it, I'd definetly do something about it.

[Mr. Ron]

Yes I'm scary because I demand justice and retribution while the rest of the world would rather sit on their asses and say, "No no bad nazi." We all saw how well that worked in WWII.

Execution of people who had nothing to do with the holocaust is senseless. Thats like executing modern southerners and saying it was justice for slavery.

[Apollyon]

Execution of people who had nothing to do with the holocaust is senseless.

It's called preventive measures. We didn't have them in 1939 and millions of people died as a result.

[Akira]

Yes I'm scary because I demand justice and retribution while the rest of the world would rather sit on their asses and say, "No no bad nazi." We all saw how well that worked in WWII.

If people start to instigate antisemitic violence, then stop it. But if you try to stop them from simply saying they hate Jews, you should be stopped.

[Mr. Ron]

It's called preventive measures. We didn't have them in 1939 and millions of people died as a result.

Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?


So you would slaughter innocent people just because you held a grudge against them because you're jewish? In this case, you're no better than a SS officer.

[Akira]

It's called preventive measures. We didn't have them in 1939 and millions of people died as a result.

If I say "I hate (insert political leader)", should I be arrested as a "preventive measure" against me assassinating said leader?

[ringworm]

Um support of torture. Sorry but that's a little worse than not protecting some neo-nazis.
Umm, people are going to jail JUST for saying what they think in the UK area, but lets make sure we bring up American wiretapping, ughh

VERY hipocritical IMO

Zero I could say similar things about a number of American policies. One flaw in all of the freedoms we have does not equate to a police state.

thats my point, you seem to want to rush past the UK's faults & jump on the US's, just like everyone else in the media, news etc.

The UK seems to be far worse than the US in every way, but the US is always in the spotlight? I dont get it?

[Light Fantastic]

I already covered why saying 'fascistic' is incorrect:smash:
... like saying leftist police state was. That was the point.

in the UK areaOr not, helps if you know what you are talking about. Holocaust denial isn't illegal here.

[ringworm]

well I asked that earlier…

[Light Fantastic]

Asked what? If the uk has laws against holocaust denail? It's pretty easy to check for yourself.

Anyway, lets discuss:

The UK seems to be far worse than the US in every way

Elaborate.

[Apollyon]

Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?

Ever heard of the Third Reich?

So you would slaughter innocent people just because you held a grudge against them because you're jewish? In this case, you're no better than a SS officer.

Innocent? :lol: Nazis are not innocent.

If I say "I hate (insert political leader)", should I be arrested as a "preventive measure" against me assassinating said leader?

If you were holding an international conference in which you barred access from anyone that didn't believe in the eradication of said political leader and made comments like, "I want to tell the western countries just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." Then yes, I would fully support an arrest or worse.

[Hababi]

Come on Jared, you think it's possible for another holocaust to happen in today's world? D

Absolutely. In fact, countless genocides have occurred since then while everyone else has looked on with disinterest. Cambodia. Rwanda. Darfur. We've learned nothing. And there are still elements in the world that wish to finish what Hitler started.


... like saying leftist police state was. That was the point.

Ok closer to a Plutocracy. It's still anti Democratic and authoritarian.

[Mr. Ron]

Ever heard of the Third Reich?



Innocent? :lol: Nazis are not innocent.



If you were holding an international conference in which you barred access from anyone that didn't believe in the eradication of said political leader and made comments like, "I want to tell the western countries just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." Then yes, I would fully support an arrest or worse.

Ever heard of being better than the Third Reich and judging people for their crimes like civilized people in a court of law?



Yes there are, if they have done nothing. Do you think all Nazi's agreed with Hitler?





If you want your idea of "preventive executions" to be real, then you cannot complain if someone kills you if they disagree with you.

[ringworm]

Asked what? If the uk has laws against holocaust denail? It's pretty easy to check for yourself.
well do they?

the start of the thread made me think they did, just write it off as typical Amercian, I heard "Europe" & just ASSumed all of it had harsh anti-speech laws

Elaborate.
too close to quittin time over here, gotta get ready for the weekend :)
maybe next week

[Steerpike]

Yes I'm scary because I demand justice and retribution while the rest of the world would rather sit on their asses and say, "No no bad nazi." We all saw how well that worked in WWII.

You can't police thought. If you executed these people, you would turn them into martyrs, and lend strength to their cause. Good going!

It's called preventive measures. We didn't have them in 1939 and millions of people died as a result.

The doctrine of preemption also gave us the Iraq War. In another year or so, I've heard it estimated that the death toll from the war will actually surpass what Saddam was responsible for across his entire ruling period.

You can't execute people for disagreeing with you and call yourself a hero. Though cannot be policed, only actions.

thats my point, you seem to want to rush past the UK's faults & jump on the US's, just like everyone else in the media, news etc.

Because that sells headlines. The US has the most bellicose rhetoric about having the moral highground, then fail to live up to that. Not even reality TV scandals can compete with that.

[Light Fantastic]

It's mostly the countries with direct involvement in the holocaust that have such laws. We have laws against inciting racial hatred but those don't apply for revisionism and whatnot.

[Mr. Ron]

Hate crime laws are stupid as well. Someone shouldn't get more time based off of their motivation for the crime.

[Steerpike]

Ever heard of the Third Reich?

By that logic, we should have nuked the whole of Germany. Let's face it, everyone who hadn't gotten out of Germany at that point was a nAzi, even the civilians. Would you have felt good with that on your conscience?

If you were holding an international conference in which you barred access from anyone that didn't believe in the eradication of said political leader and made comments like, "I want to tell the western countries just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." Then yes, I would fully support an arrest or worse.

He's not going to do anything right now because he knows Israel and the US have lots of working nukes.

[Hababi]

It's mostly the countries with direct involvement in the holocaust that have such laws. We have laws against inciting racial hatred but those don't apply for revisionism and whatnot.

You have a law against inciting an emotion???

So, does the UK ban Birth of a Nation?

[Light Fantastic]

Someone shouldn't get more time based off of their motivation for the crime.Of course they should. It's more acceptable to commit a crime of passion say than to attack someone based on some stupid ideals you have about race.

Just like manslaughter and murder are two seperate things, the difference is motivation.

[Mr. Ron]

Of course they should. It's more acceptable to commit a crime of passion say than to attack someone based on some stupid ideals you have about race.

No, it's not. No crime is acceptable. Whats the difference if someone kills out or passion or racial hatred? Nothing but motivation, and in the end motivation means nothing. What matters is the crime that has been committed. ALL murders are committed out of hate!

[Steerpike]

Of course they should. It's more acceptable to commit a crime of passion say than to attack someone based on some stupid ideals you have about race.

Just like manslaughter and murder are two seperate things, the difference is motivation.

Actually, manslaughter and murder are only partially motivation. Methodology and circumstance is also taken into consideration.

There are three types of murders: profit, passion, and compulsion. That is how the courts decide what the sentencing should be. Race should not enter into it.

[Hababi]

It's more acceptable to commit a crime of passion say than to attack someone based on some stupid ideals you have about race.


So...if I bash your face in because you say something rude to me, it's more acceptable than if you were black and I did it because you were black????

[Light Fantastic]

You have a law against inciting an emotion???


A law which prevents the spreading of nonsense with the purpose of creating intolerance of other races or faiths. America has much more racism than here, the law creates freedoms for minorities who can better integrate into the culture because of it.

So, does the UK ban Birth of a Nation?I have no idea, and I can't say I'd be displeased if they did.

No crime is acceptable.Conservative viewpoint. Crime can be acceptable when the perpetrator is overcome with emotion, for example.

Whats the difference if someone kills out or passion or racial hatred?One deals with great emotion, the other is a completely baseless ideology which needs to be eradicated.

Actually, manslaughter and murder are only partially motivation. Methodology and circumstance is also taken into consideration.Manslaughter is without malicious thought, killing someone without motivation at all. Murder always involves motivation.


Zero: It's not a hate crime just because the person is black. Only when the court can prove you did it for racial reasons.

[Hababi]

A law which prevents the spreading of nonsense with the purpose of creating intolerance of other races or faiths.


Hmmm sounds more like a law that the expression of unpopular opinions.

And, those laws are always selectively applied, by liberals, to target those who don't agree with them. Because otherwise, from the sound of it, Charlotte Church would be up for a fine.


I have no idea, and I can't say I'd be displeased if they did.

So you want Big Brother telling you what opinions you can have?

[Steerpike]

the law creates freedoms for minorities who can better integrate into the culture because of it.

No it doesn't! Hate crime laws just tell us that black people (etc) are different and need to be treated as such.

I have no idea, and I can't say I'd be displeased if they did.

I was allowed to watch Triumph of the Will as part of a documentary class. I'd be a hypocrite if I said no one else was allowed to watch that or any other controversial movie.

Conservative viewpoint. Crime can be acceptable when the perpetrator is overcome with emotion, for example.

You commit a crime, there are consequences to pay. Yes or no?

One deals with great emotion, the other is a completely baseless ideology which needs to be eradicated.

Profit, passion, compulsion. Do I need to explain these to you?

[Mr. Ron]

A law which prevents the spreading of nonsense with the purpose of creating intolerance of other races or faiths. America has much more racism than here, the law creates freedoms for minorities who can better integrate into the culture because of it.

I have no idea, and I can't say I'd be displeased if they did.

Conservative viewpoint. Crime can be acceptable when the perpetrator is overcome with emotion, for example.

One deals with great emotion, the other is a completely baseless ideology which needs to be eradicated.

Manslaughter is without malicious thought, killing someone without motivation at all. Murder always involves motivation.


Zero: It's not a hate crime just because the person is black. Only when the court can prove you did it for racial reasons.
Why does hate have to be eradicated? It's a human emotion ingrained in to our brains. Good luck achieving that one.

[Light Fantastic]

And, those laws are always selectively applied, by liberals, to target those who don't agree with them. Because otherwise, from the sound of it, Charlotte Church would be up for a fine.
I wont argue your irrational dislike of those with liberal viewpoints.


So you want Big Brother telling you what opinions you can have?
I want them to prevent the distribution of hateful material which goes against the integration of minorities in this country.

[Steerpike]

Why does hate have to be eradicated? It's a human emotion ingrained in to our brains. Good luck achieving that one.

People are obsessed with fighting abstractions. I can't for the life of me understand why.

[Steerpike]

I want them to prevent the distribution of hateful material which goes against the integration of minorities in this country.

By policing thought? You can't do that. And I'm not saying that as a moral issue, I'm saying that because it's a flat out impossibility!

[Light Fantastic]

No it doesn't! Hate crime laws just tell us that black people (etc) are different and need to be treated as such.
The incitement to ethnic or racial hatred law is different because it's not about attacks on persons because of race or religion. It is concerned with the preventing of spreading such material that will cause these viewpoints to be formed. Even normal hate crime laws are not stating minorities need to be treated any differently to whites because the law does extend to attacks of racial hatred on white people too.

You commit a crime, there are consequences to pay. Yes or no?
Of course, but there are varying consequences. As a human being I would hope you can understand being overpowered by emotion so that it leads you to kill someone. There is a difference between that and killing someone because you think black people need to be wiped out, for example. The punishments should vary accordingly.



Profit, passion, compulsion. Do I need to explain these to you?Which one applies to the holocaust then?

Why does hate have to be eradicated? It's a human emotion ingrained in to our brains. Good luck achieving that one.
Hate doesn't. Racial hatred does, and that's not ingrained in anyone.

By policing thought? You can't do that. And I'm not saying that as a moral issue, I'm saying that because it's a flat out impossibility!
Not policing thought, controlling the distribution of materials that would lead to people holding such beliefs in the first place.

[Steerpike]

The incitement to ethnic or racial hatred law is different because it's not about attacks on persons because of race or religion. It is concerned with the preventing of spreading such material that will cause these viewpoints to be formed. Even normal hate crime laws are not stating minorities need to be treated any differently to whites because the law does extend to attacks of racial hatred on white people too.

But how often do white people get that treatment?

My philosophy on this is to let the idiots get up on their soapbox and let me use the mighty sword of logic to cut them down. When you let stupid people be stupid, they'll slowly die out.

Of course, but there are varying consequences. As a human being I would hope you can understand being overpowered by emotion so that it leads you to kill someone.

Doesn't make it right.

There is a difference between that and killing someone because you think black people need to be wiped out, for example. The punishments should vary accordingly.

Ideology isn't the issue. It's the nature of the specific crime committed that is factored into the sentencing. Whether or not a guy is black, he was asaulted, and assault is illegal. Was the person committing the crime lucid? Was it planned out ahead of time? Was it made on pure emotion with no regard for risk/benefit analysis?

Which one applies to the holocaust then?

Profit.

Hate doesn't. Racial hatred does, and that's not ingrained in anyone.

You're still trying to police thought. That doesn't work.

Not policing thought, controlling the distribution of materials that would lead to people holding such beliefs in the first place.

Did you or did you not read my above statement on my experience watching Triumph of the Will?

I watched that movie and it did not turn me into a Nazi. The problem is that you're assuming everyone in the world is dumber than you. If you think someone watching Birth of a Nation is going to turn them into the Grand Imperial Dragon, then you also have to take away our video games before Silent Hill turns some poor Japanese boy into Pyramid Head.

[Apollyon]

By policing thought? You can't do that. And I'm not saying that as a moral issue, I'm saying that because it's a flat out impossibility!

It's not "policing" thought, it's taking preemptive measures to ensure that thoughts being counter-productive to the wellness of the population don't blossom into action. And in the instances that they do, the perpetrators are swiftly and harshly dealt with to discourage further infractions.

[Steerpike]

It's not "policing" thought, it's taking preemptive measures to ensure that thoughts being counter-productive to the wellness of the population don't blossom into action. And in the instances that they do, the perpetrators are swiftly and harshly dealt with to discourage further infractions.

By attacking them before they've done anything, you're turning them into martyrs. The best way to deal with them is to just point and laugh.

You can't use the doctrine of preemtpion to justify dick.

[Mr. Ron]

It's not "policing" thought, it's taking preemptive measures to ensure that thoughts being counter-productive to the wellness of the population don't blossom into action. And in the instances that they do, the perpetrators are swiftly and harshly dealt with to discourage further infractions.

So you literally want all speech that "seems" to be "dangerous" suppressed and dealt with by extreme force? Don't you see how this could get out of hand?

[Light Fantastic]

But how often do white people get that treatment?The application of these laws leave a lot to be desired. That doesn't make the laws themselves flawed.

When you let stupid people be stupid, they'll slowly die out.They'll die out quicker if you control the sources of it.

Doesn't make it right.I never said it did, it does make it more understandable and acceptable in society though. That matters when it's a jury convicting the perpetrator.

Was the person committing the crime lucid? Was it planned out ahead of time? Was it made on pure emotion with no regard for risk/benefit analysis?Of course all these things are considered, but racial motivations should be and are also considered in the trial, especially by a jury.

You're still trying to police thought. That doesn't work.No, it is policing propaganda. Obviously you can't control thought, but you can certainly stem the flow of misinformation and hate, making it harder for racist organisations to affect the minds of young people and generally stupid people alike.

Did you or did you not read my above statement on my experience watching Triumph of the Will?

I watched that movie and it did not turn me into a Nazi.You aren't stupid, but there are people who are influenced by material of such nature. Video games aren't comparable because any normal person can tell the difference between that world and this. Video games don't present their content in a believable format like racialist or racist organisations do.

Pyramid Head was an antagonist anyway.

[Iskandar]

Look, when people are fined and/or jailed for criticizing homosexuality, you have a left wing police state.
Why are you associating "left-wing" with "police state"? Sweden's censorship policies are not necessarily related to their being left-leaning. Not all leftists support such restrictions, even if we see expressing homophobic views, etc. as a problem.

[Give me Beer]

Too late :p

Look, when people are fined and/or jailed for criticizing homosexuality, you have a left wing police state.

The French Government is...

...Wait for it...

Right wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_a_Popular_Movement

Shows how much you know about Europe. :)

Also, I think the holocaust denial laws are stupid, but I can understand the people who put them in place. They were after all put in place right after the war. Want to guess why?

[Hababi]

I know that they're considered right-wing but they're not, socially. Repressing criticism of homosexuality is a liberal platform, pushed by gay rights groups.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I know that they're considered right-wing but they're not, socially. Repressing criticism of homosexuality is a liberal platform, pushed by gay rights groups.

:o surely you can't back up such a shocking and controversial statement? :o





NO DON'T DO SO I WAS TAKING THE PISS


Why the fu'ck shouldn't gey rights groups campaign for pro-gay causes?

[Hababi]

:o surely you can't back up such a shocking and controversial statement? :o





NO DON'T DO SO I WAS TAKING THE PISS


Why the fu'ck shouldn't gey rights groups campaign for pro-gay causes?

Exterminating freedom of speech and persecuting those you don't like isn't a pro-gay cause, it's an anti-free speech cause. It shows a certain dictatorial bent to the gay groups.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Exterminating freedom of speech and persecuting those you don't like isn't a pro-gay cause, it's an anti-free speech cause. It shows a certain dictatorial bent to the gay groups.

In their (and my) eyes, it's no different to banning racism or antisemitism.

I don't agree with banning it but i can at least empaphise with why they feel it's necessary.

[Hababi]

In their (and my) eyes, it's no different to banning racism or antisemitism.

I don't agree with banning it but i can at least empaphise with why they feel it's necessary.

Except that condemning homosexuality is condemning a lifestyle choice, as opposed to a genetic trait.

[Mr. Ron]

Exterminating freedom of speech and persecuting those you don't like isn't a pro-gay cause, it's an anti-free speech cause. It shows a certain dictatorial bent to the gay groups.

Real life examples of this?

[AlienEater]

Except that condemning homosexuality is condemning a lifestyle choice, as opposed to a genetic trait.

It isn't a choice

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Except that condemning homosexuality is condemning a lifestyle choice, as opposed to a genetic trait.

Clearly they don't see it this way, as you know veyr well they don't, so FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW it is condemning something they can't help.

[Iskandar]

I know that they're considered right-wing but they're not, socially. Repressing criticism of homosexuality is a liberal platform, pushed by gay rights groups.
That's a bleeding-heart view, not a left-libertarian view. The left isn't in complete agreement on everything. You can't just make a categorical statement like that.

[Give me Beer]

I know that they're considered right-wing but they're not, socially. Repressing criticism of homosexuality is a liberal platform, pushed by gay rights groups.

...but they are right-wing, socially as well. France is not über-Christian, maybe that's what you're looking for?

Are you seriously going to tell me that SARKOZY and CHIRAC are LEFT WING?

:lol:

[gregulus]

It's not "policing" thought, it's taking preemptive measures to ensure that thoughts being counter-productive to the wellness of the population don't blossom into action. And in the instances that they do, the perpetrators are swiftly and harshly dealt with to discourage further infractions.

The number of racists in the United States is far less than the number of people who are not racist. These "preemptive measures" that you are talking about would be, essentially, killing people because they have a backwards, outdated belief. What if an animal-rights activist believes that any person that works with captured animals should be killed? Should they be yanked out of their bed at night and massacred at point black range? Or what if a radical, yet very small, faction opposed to our system of government thinks that their should be a violent coup to overthrow the government? Should they all be locked inside of a church and burned alive in the name of "preemptive measures" to ensure the "safety" of the nation? These "preemptive measures" are starting to sound rather frightening.\

You cannot kill people for what they believe, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

[Steerpike]

The application of these laws leave a lot to be desired. That doesn't make the laws themselves flawed.

The extremely whimsical nature with which the race card can be applied and taken seriously in a legal context suggests otherwise.

They'll die out quicker if you control the sources of it.

Oh really? Then how come all these illegal ideas are still around?

You fail to realize that by banning something like Holocaust denial, you just make it more enticing to the stupid and the insane.

I never said it did, it does make it more understandable and acceptable in society though. That matters when it's a jury convicting the perpetrator.

Since when is killing somebody acceptable in any way, shape, or form?

Of course all these things are considered, but racial motivations should be and are also considered in the trial, especially by a jury.

No they shouldn't. Race should not be a category separate from profit, passion, or compulsion. It is not important enough to make a difference to those categories.

And the jury does not decide on such a thing, they only decide whether the evidence proves the person is guilty or not guilty. It is the judge who decides on the punishment to suit the crime.

No, it is policing propaganda. Obviously you can't control thought, but you can certainly stem the flow of misinformation and hate, making it harder for racist organisations to affect the minds of young people and generally stupid people alike.

You can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things by being stupid yourself.

You're making martyrs out of the Holocaust deniers, thus rallying support for their cause. You're not stopping or preventing dick. If anything, you're exacerbating the problem. Not only are you calling more attention to them, but you're giving them the ability to play the victim card.

Freedom of speech was designed to protect both the good and the bad. If you can make it a crime to deny the Holocaust, then you make it a crime to deny global warming. And then you can make it a crime to deny evolution and support creationism. And then you can make it a crime to use obscene language. If you can do one, you can do all of those. No matter how stupid, or insane the ideas are, you don't combat them by heavy-handedly banning them. You just educate the people around you about the truth. Is that hard on each of us personally? You're damn right it is! But that just means it's worth doing.

You aren't stupid, but there are people who are influenced by material of such nature.

If they're so stupid, what's to stop a real intelligent person from presenting the facts that will change their mind?

Video games aren't comparable because any normal person can tell the difference between that world and this. Video games don't present their content in a believable format like racialist or racist organisations do.

Pyramid Head was an antagonist anyway.

The whooshing sound you hear is the joke going over your head.

However my point stands that if we're going to cease propaganda, then everyone everywhere has to shut the **** up, because propaganda does not apply solely to that which disagrees with you.

Except that condemning homosexuality is condemning a lifestyle choice, as opposed to a genetic trait.

You should know by now that's an argument you're never going to win with us.

This is actually good for my overall point. What zero is saying here I find to unbelievably stupid. I'm talking deformed Banjo kid in Deliverance stupid. But I'm not in favor of passing legislation to make it a crime for him to say that. He can say whatever dumbass thing he wants, so long as he doesn't go out of his way to hurt somebody.

Now if some religious schmuck (like say from Phelps' church) started speaking against gays and then actually attacked a gay friend of mine, then I would use my bare hands to "surgically" have their testicles and their eyeballs switch places.

You can't stop people from saying stupid things. And you can't ban it because you'll just martyr them. When they actually do hurt somebody, then the gloves are off.

[Hababi]

...but they are right-wing, socially as well. France is not über-Christian, maybe that's what you're looking for?

Are you seriously going to tell me that SARKOZY and CHIRAC are LEFT WING?

:lol:

There's a difference between social and fiscal policy, as you well know. Also, social right wing in France basically is social left wing in America. Just because they're to the left of people who want to have sex with dogs, doesn't make them right wing.


That's a bleeding-heart view, not a left-libertarian view. The left isn't in complete agreement on everything. You can't just make a categorical statement like that.


Yes, I know :(



You should know by now that's an argument you're never going to win with us.


Oh I know that's why I'm not continuing it :p

I've barked up that tree too many times.


But one last thing: Leave it to gay groups to get more upset about someone saying that homosexuality is a sin than someone publicly saying they want to annihilate another country...

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

But one last thing: Leave it to gay groups to get more upset about someone saying that homosexuality is a sin than someone publicly saying they want to annihilate another country...What a daft contrast to make. That just isn't a decent point at all.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

But one last thing: Leave it to gay groups to get more upset about someone saying that homosexuality is a sin than someone publicly saying they want to annihilate another country...

Yeah, because sweden clearly supports Hamas and it's only because of the swedish government's say so that Hamas are allowed to say what they do without sanctions :rolleyes: