Greek PM promises Jewish leaders a law against Holocaust denial

[alp227]

Source: Haaretz

The Prime Minister of Greece promised Jewish leaders on Sunday that he would introduce a new law to prevent Holocaust-denying parties from running for parliament in his country.

Prime Minister Antonis Samaras was participating in a commemoration service at Saloniki's Monastiriotes Synagogue marking the 70th anniversary of the start of the deportation of the town's Jews to the German death-camps.

...

In what was the first visit by a serving Greek prime minister to a synagogue, Samaras said that "Greek society has been infected by voices that seek to resurrect racism" and that "neo-Nazis have reappeared once again in Europe."

...

In a meeting after the service with WJC President Ronald Lauder, Jewish Agency Chairman Nathan Sharansky and Israel's ambassador to Greece, Samaras explained that the proposed legislation would bar parties that denied crimes against humanity, such as the Holocaust-denying Golden Dawn, from running in future for the Greek parliament.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/greek-pm-promises-jewish-leaders-a-law-against-holocaust-denial.premium-1.510076

[Buzz Clik]

1. A law against holocaust denial? He's going to legislate against insensitivity and stupidity?

Good luck with that.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Holocaust denial is racism of the most horrific sort

specifically because it uses specious research in its 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Holocaust denial is one example I use in my argument against blind acquiescence to so-called 'free speech.'

[Celebration]

3. there is no greater right

than free speech. Very dangerous to mess with it in any form.

[bossy22]

5. exactly

the most dangerous aspect of it is that there is no clear line in which to separate speech of this matter. You could make an argument against all speech that "offends" based on some of the logic that is out there. In fact, IIRC thats exactly what some on DU were arguing when the whole benghazi incident went down

[bossy22]

4. how is holocaust denial not free speech?

As disgusting as it is it should still be legal. outlawing it sets a dangerous precedent, that government can prohibit certain ideas. where does it stop? How do we draw the line?

I know this is Greece, not the u.s.- so they might have different ideals then we do. still, I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent such thing from becoming law in the united states

ohh...and btw...I had extended family members who were killed in the holocaust.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Laws against holocaust denial have been on the books in 17 nations

either explicitly or implicitly, for years. To my way of thinking, holocaust denial is no more 'protected speech' than incitement to riot or racial hate speech.

[bossy22]

10. that doesn't mean its right to restrict it

I disagree with all those nations in this matter. I also believe racial hate speech should be legal. Incitement though is a bit different, because it directly can result in violence. There is a big difference between advocating violence and just simply stating your belief. laws against hate speech criminalize a belief- not an action. So if you can ban one idea, why not the other? The simple answer is that you can using that logic. the only thing then protecting free speech is sound bite media and to a lesser degree public opinion. the line between "protected" and "non-protected" speech will be so blurred that you will in inadvertently cause widespread censorship.

[former9thward]

17. None of those countries have a First amendment.

So their governments don't have a problem passing any law which restricts free speech. Incitement to riot, while on the books in some states, is nearly impossible to prosecute. Racial hate speech is protected when by itself. It only becomes an issue when another crime is committed and if there is a racial motivation then the crime gets 'bumped up'.

[sulphurdunn]

6. No it isn't

The Holocaust was. They are not the same.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. No, they are not the same

but I still say the denial is just as bad, as it lays the groundwork for its repetition at some point in the future - trivializing the horror of the actual occurrence. In the absence of an actual genocide in progress, denial of its victims is, in effect, committing the atrocities anew.

[bossy22]

11. then you fight the idea with words and evidence supporting that it did happen

you don't ban the idea. That is how free speech works. Essentially what you advocate is that any speech with is offensive should not be "protected".

on edit: also, what about the unintended message banning holocaust denial can send? That we believe it is a biggest enough "threat" that we need to do something about it. Can't that be interpreted to mean that the holocaust deniers are "making progress"? Aren't you giving them attention? Sometimes the best policy is to just ignore it, especially when it is such a crazy idea. Ignore them, don't give them air time, don't legitimize their belief by bringing it to national attention.

[Posteritatis]

12. People who deny it are generally people who'd like to give it another try. (nt)

[sulphurdunn]

19. Let 'em.

They can never succeed in a society that values facts, the lessons of history and the rule of law. Suppressing the free expression of Holocaust deniers rather than refuting their claims would most likely be the equivalent of trying to douse a fire by pouring gasoline on it. In 1977 American Nazis decided to march through Skokie Illinois. The population was about 40% Jewish then. The town tried to stop it. The ACLU sued the town on behalf of the Nazis and the march went off peaceably enough. Later, the Supreme Court ruled that it had been a legal activity under the 1st Amendment clauses covering freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. Since nothing happened beyond some name calling and hurt feelings, that was the end of it, and was pretty much the end of the brown shirt Nazi movement in America because without violent confrontation justified by oppression and marginalization hate movements are deprived of the oxygen they need to breathe.

[Throd]

8. Holocaust denial is a great way for people to self-identify as racist crackpots.

I'd rather know who they are.

[christx30]

13. I agree

I'd rather hear people say "Global Warming isn't real" and know that I don't need to pay attention to the crackpot than to ban the speech.

[ZombieHorde]

14. I respect the goal, but I disagree with the execution of the goal. nt

[nomorenomore08]

15. Pretty much how I feel. To the extent that denying the existence of genocide

arguably makes future genocides more likely, I sympathize with the reasoning behind this. But I tend to be wary of any legal restrictions on speech.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Exactly. nt

[Nye Bevan]

18. Imagine a law being passed making it illegal to claim that the moon landings were faked.

Would this make people less likely to believe that the landings were faked, or more likely to believe this? I would venture to say the latter. Because then the conspiracy theorists would claim, "look! Our ideas are so dangerous that the Government needs to ban them from being expressed!"

This is why I think banning Holocaust denial plays into the deniers' hands. Ridicule them, pity them, or ignore them, in other words treat them like flat-Earthers, but allow them to beclown themselves.