Cheryl Cheong(p0762135) of DMC1B05 strongly believes that:
I am for the decriminalising of holocaust denial, because, to put it bluntly, it is not such a big deal. What is the harm of a man standing in Belgium shouting that the holocaust did not happen? Does it really warrant him getting sent to jail? For me, I would have to say ‘no’. It seems that this debate is really about freedom of speech vs. detrimental effects if we allow these anti-semantic believes to be expressed. I feel strongly that the freedom of speech should take precedence, because sufficient checks and balances exist that will prevent us from all believing that the holocaust did not happen.
The most prevalent fear if someone denies the holocaust would be that that idea would create a sort of ‘snow-ball’ effect that one by one, we will all be swayed by that person’s argument, and in the end, sincerely believe that the holocaust did not happen. I think that this fear is clearly unfounded because it is not like we change our beliefs based on what one person says. We do research, we contemplate about it, and only then do we come to a conclusion. Historical evidence, pictures, reports all point towards the existence of the holocaust, so how will all this evidence be ignored just by the mad claims of a few people? There are not reasonable grounds for one to believe that the holocaust did not happen.
In the most extreme cases, pro-criminalisation-of-holocaust-denial believe that holocaust denial will be taken to its extremes and what will result will be similar like what is happening in Japan, where they rewrite textbooks to soften the acts of the Japanese. This will clearly never happen because of the market place of ideas. In our world today where globalisation is pertinent, how is it that we can publish our viewpoints and not have them debated upon?
The marketplace of ideas is the most efficient check and balance to put naysayers of the holocaust right and it even provides a platform for society to see two sides to the issue and decide for themselves which they would want to believe in. Japan may have tried to rewrite textbooks, but that did not stop the rest of the world from rebuking them and setting the Japanese government and its people straight. In much the same way, David Irving may have published a book about how the holocaust did not happen, but that did not stop Deborah Lipstadt from rebuking him. Society at large would have had the opportunity to see the flaws in Irving’s work just from that, so why was there the need to put him in prison in the first place?
In conclusion, the holocaust denial should be decriminalised, because at the very end of it, sufficient checks and balances exist in the marketplace of ideas that will prevent holocaust denial from escalating to become the truth.
I would beg to differ. Take the example Cheryl pointed out, a man standing in Belgium denying holocaust.
Yes, many would say there's nothing wrong about it but think about what the people who were in any way affected by the holocaust? Maybe their grandparents were killed because of the holocaust or maybe for the one simple reason, they're Jews.
It is definitely a painful history for the Jews, all anti-semitic policies. All that they have went through, if still being denied for will definitely create a lot of unhappiness among the Jews. It is as good as killing someone, get away with it and tell the world you didn't do it as the victim's family live in unjust.
As if this doesn't sound bad enough. Imagine if everyone is given the right to deny the holocaust, building the angst among the Jews. This may lead to a forming of a group which will slowly lead to discrimination and worst come to worst, violence will seep in, which is what none of us would want to see.
Secondly, if one denies holocaust, it can also mean that there may be something wrong with what is taught in school. For someone to deny confidently about the holocaust and not being ashamed by it, it can probably be due to whatever is taught in school.
If every school teaches students the wrong things then as time passes, the history of the holocaust may even be forgotten which is really unfair to the Jews who suffered a lot back then.
In conclusion, I think that denying holocaust should be a crime still as the effects can turn really sour.
I agree with Amanda, denying the holocaust should be a crime.
Since the holocaust had indeed existed and took away so many lives, why should the denial of holocaust be decriminalised? So many Jews had been murdered and it is unfair to them if it is decriminalised.
Don't those who deny the holocaust feel guilty? How could they deny it with facts and evidences staring straight into their face? If you have murdered someone you have to admit it. In this case, it is a mass killing of the Jews, why deny what had been done?
I agree with amanda and zixin that denying the holocaust should be a crime.
Of course the example that cheryl pointed out about the man standing in Belgium shouting that holocaust did not happen is not a crime in any way whatsoever, but after so much damage holocaust has caused; one simply can't disregard it totally. It is unfair to those who suffered under the destructive hands of holocaust.
When we say criminalising of holocaust denial, we mean that these people are thrown into a cold, hard prison cell, a period of their lives stripped away from them, just because they said some lies about an incident that happened over 30 years ago. What we should question ourselves is "is that fair?"
Is it fair that Dan Brown can cook up claims to write a book saying that Jesus was just a farce and be awarded for it but David Irving who cooked up some evidence to say the holocaust didn't happen cannot?
Yes, it may be hurting to those who've gone through the holocaust to see someone deny a memory so painful, but people like Zi Xin, Stella and Amanda will clearly set him straight and show him for what an idiotic bigot he is. Is it really necessary to take away his years to live with his family, his frieds, his loved ones like that? Just for a painful memory that others will correct him even if he was careless with what he said?
I agree, we cannot disregard the holocaust happened, because even if we do, other people will put us right. I feel that is sufficient- not putting people in jail over some careless wrong-mouthing.
i don't see how denying an event should be classified under criminal act.
people are entitled to choices. so if one chooses to deny Holocaust.it does not mean that Holocaust is completely wiped out from History. and furthermore, there are strong, hard evidences that show Holocaust did occur.
when one chooses to disregard such an event ever happened, it does not necessarily result in other people following suit. it's simply a matter of individual choice of whether one wants to believe the Holocaust or not.
if the jail sentence on a person is based on the fact that his views of the Holocaust have the power of influencing others and thus results in a movement or a group of followers, how is that justifiable? it is like sentencing someone for having his own set of views and perceptions.
yes i agree that it does not do the Jews any form of justice. But there are a lot of injustices (furthermore, it's all a matter of perspectives. what is seen as justifiable to one might not be seen as justifiable to another) in this world. and denying the holocaust is not reason enough for one to be jailed.
I still think that the denial of holocaust should be a crime. If the denial of holocaust does not becomes a crime, more and more people will begin to deny it. Then, people will start to think that denying the holocaust is right and this is not true.
It is wrong to say that the holocaust did not happen, furthermore, it is about the death of such a terrifying number of people. It is very unfair to the Jews if it is decriminalised. If this happened to your ancestors, I believe that you would feel strongly against decriminalising it.
Yes, this debate may seem to be just about freedom of speech, but, this issue's depth goes back years ago, and its not just a simple issue, it involves the massacre of 6 million people, 6 million jews. That amount of deaths is just too much to deny.
Besides, by simply denying that the holocaust has happened, i think, is insensitive, especially to the jews, knowing how much has been lost, how much they've been through, especially the ones that had survived the nightmare.
If we allow denial of holocaust, more and more people would join in to deny that it ever happened. The holocaust is a huge example of what racism could lead to, hence providing a lesson to everyone from letting such horrifying acts to happen again.
I do agree a jail sentence might seem a little too harsh, given that the man was just voicing his thoughts. There could be other ways to punish a person who tries to deny the holocaust. For example, a fine? community service? and other lighter punishments. I do suggest jail, if theres repeated offence though.
I do think denying the holocaust is very insensitive to the jews who lost so much during the holocaust but enacting a law based on historical guilt just can't stand in today's world.
During the Rowanda genocide, millions of people were killed in the span of 2-3 days while the world watched and held meetings, puzzling over what to do. So many people were killed that the waters of rover Rowanda turned red, stained by blood. Why isn't it a crime to say that the Rowanda Genocide didn't happen? One would be offending the people of Rowanda just as well, so in the issue of fairness,why doesn't the same rules apply?
How about my ancestors in China who sloghed and died by that stupid wall that didn't even serve to keep the Mongolians out. Do you know how many Chinese people died by that wall, tortured to their breaking point, with minimal food and water to eat? I think it's a great insult to my ancestors that tourist go there everyday to take pictures and see how far up the wall they can climb. If we allow the same rules of historical guilt to dictate how we legislate laws, then shouldn't we be throwing people who say that the Chinese didn't suffer to build that wall into jail?
I agree that publishing content denying the holocaust should be punishable by law as denying the holocaust disrespects people that died and suffering families as a repercussion of the holocaust.
However, how is it logical that someone standing in the street saying that the holocaust did not happen simply be arrested and thrown into prison?
People should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech to an extent. They should not and cannot be forced to entirely change their opinions on an issue. Disallowing people to speak their minds is an invasion of privacy and oppression!!
Arresting someone simply because they made a casual denial of the holocaust is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Holocaust denial being a crime in the past may have been right, because it is away to keep in mind the 6 million deaths that took place against the jews then. However, 60 years down the road, is it still such a big deal?
If people want to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then they are just plain stupid because they don't want to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Since when have we started arresting and putting people into jail for being plain stupid?
If you are worried of the snowball effect towards thinking the crime never happened, let me warn you of another snowball effect that would take place if you DO criminalise Holocaust Denial. It would lead to the denial of other crimes also being criminalised. Crimes such as what the Japanese did to the Chinese, what the Americans did to the Iraqis or Afghanistanis, or like the Rwandan Genocide. If denying all these crimes were made unlawful, then u would be stifling any form of open debate on our history and past. You are oppressing the people. Would you want to live in such a world where you are not allowed to say anything about your past and have to keep all your thoughts bottled up inside of you in the fear that saying the wrong thing would land you in jail?
Therefore, in this scenario, we are in a lose-lose situation. Whether we criminalise it or not, we will face a loss in some way. Thus it is important for us just to measure the losses and see which one would leave behind less debri than the other. In this case, criminalising Holocaust Denial would just leave behind a whole trail of debri that you will never be able to pick up, while decriminalising it would just leave a small pile of stones and rubble that can be quickly swept away.
Thus is tand for decriminalising Holocaust Denial as it is better for the people.
It does seem outrageous to throw someone in jail simply because they are expressing their opinions. As quoted by Jolene, “Arresting someone simply because they made a casual denial of the holocaust is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill”.
But if we delve deeper into the issue, we have to ask ourselves whether it is merely the expression of opinions. Ask the people who deny the Holocaust and I doubt they will state that they are just making ‘casual denials’.
These are the 5 claims of the Holocaust Denial, as stated by http://www.adl.org/holocaust/response.asp:
1) The Holocaust Did Not Occur Because There Is No Single "Master Plan" for Jewish Annihilation 2) There Were No Gas Chambers Used for Mass Murder at Auschwitz and Other Camps 3) Holocaust Scholars Rely on the Testimony of Survivors Because There Is No Objective Documentation Proving the Nazi Genocide 4) There Was No Net Loss of Jewish Lives Between 1941 and 1945 5) The Nuremberg Trials Were a "Farce of Justice" Staged for the Benefit of the Jews How can it be said that what they are doing are just ‘casual denials’, when they have invested so much time and effort into these statements? They have done their own ‘research’, come up with statistics to support their claims, they have turned a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence, and have written numerous books and articles about it. They sincerely believe that it did not happen and may even be willing to sacrifice their lives for these beliefs. These are not merely the expression of opinions.
These are malicious attempts to cover up history, to change facts, to plant roots of doubt into people’s minds and to discount the numerous lives that have been lost in so terrible a way. We ought not to ignore them and dismiss them as innocent, casual claims when as what Zixin has said earlier, could well develop into something bigger and more violent over the years if such ideology is not curbed.
Cheryl has said earlier that jailing someone for the Holocaust Denial is a violation of the freedom of speech, but I beg to differ. I do believe that freedom of speech should not be exploited; it should be exercised with a sense of responsibility. When someone attempts to change the entire face of history and truth, I think he or she has to be stopped. After all, don’t parents punish their children when they tell lies as well? The people who deny the holocaust are going out to say that ‘there were no gas chambers’, ‘there were no lives lost’, and ‘the Nuremberg Trials were to benefit the Jews’. Allowing people to deny the holocaust is deeply unfair to the Jews, who suffered for so long and in such terrible ways.
Cheryl has mentioned “it's a great insult to my ancestors that tourists go there everyday to take pictures and see how far up the wall they can climb. If we allow the same rules of historical guilt to dictate how we legislate laws, then shouldn't we be throwing people who say that the Chinese didn't suffer to build that wall into jail?”. I do agree that it is very sad if the people or tourists were to climb up there, snap photos and completely forget that many died or suffered to build it. That said, there are many attractions in Singapore like the Fort Canning Park which tell of the events that occurred during the Japanese Occupation. I feel that such attractions are fine, because they serve as a reminder to Singaporeans, educational tool, and evidence that the Japanese Occupation did occur. However, we should note that the tourists and the people who visit these places aren’t saying that the people didn’t suffer – rather they may be visiting them and taking photos to serve as a somber reminder.
In conclusion, I do believe that it should be a crime to deny the Holocaust.
I personally feel that denying the Holocaust should not be considered a crime although it is wrong.
I agree with Mai that people are entitled to their own views. As quoted from Mai "if one chooses to deny Holocaust.it does not mean that Holocaust is completely wiped out from History." It all boils down to our freedom of speech. Even if we chose to deny it, the evidences around us are enough to knock some sense into our brains. Why consider it a crime if everyone is subjected to their own views on a particular matter? Take David Irwing for example, he was just peacefully expressing himself but received a three-year jail sentence for a crime he committed 16 years ago.
Yes it is definitely unfair to the family members of the 6 million people who were killed just because they were Jews. All the trauma and pain they suffered as a result of the Holocaust. I agree that the Nazis did murder millions of Jews but putting people in jail for something they said out of foolishness is simply going overboard.
In conclusion, I feel that it should not be a crime to deny the Holocaust. Just because people have certain sets of views, it does not mean that the whole world will follow suit and agree that the Holocaust did not happen.
I agree with Gerlynn that freedom of speech should not be exploited and it should be exercised with a sense of responsibility.
I think that what Cheryl had said about the China wall is completely different from the denial of holocaust. I also think that the case of Japan textbook's version of the War World 2 is different from the denial of holocaust. At least, they admits it.
Though most of us know that the holocaust indeed existed, will our future generation know that? If denying the holocaust is not made a crime, more people will make use of the freedom of speech to spread their views and influence others. As people starts to publish more and more books saying that the holocaust did not exist, it will begin to confuse the future generation.
When the amount of evidence saying that the holocaust did not exists equals to the amount of evidence saying that the holocaust existed...When the number of people denying the holocaust equals to the number of people saying that the holocaust did happened, whom should they believe?
Therefore, the denial of holocaust should be made a crime. Why should there be a different treatment of the issue just because it happened a long time ago?
I agree with what Zixin has said earlier, “Though most of us know that the holocaust indeed existed, will our future generations know that?”
A lot of these “Holocaust Denial” books and articles have surfaced on the web, even though they may have been banned. We may be mature enough to know better, because the war occurred closer to our time, but what about our children? They will get their information from sources like websites or books, and it does not take a lot to influence them into believing that the Holocaust did not happen, particularly if they are young and are easily swayed.
True, the whole world may not follow suit and believe that the Holocaust did not happen, but it did not take the whole world to believe that the Jews were an inferior race before their extermination occurred during World War 2 either. It took only a group of people, and one person to lead them – Adolf Hitler. I’m sure that many must have thought that he was a peaceful politician, out only to get a fair deal for Germany after the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. We must not underestimate the power of the people who are making such Holocaust Denials – out of a tiny spark can burst a mighty flame.
Contrary to what Shirley has said earlier about David Irwing, he was not simply making “peaceful expressions”. True, he has not committed any murders or anything of that sort to prove his point, but that does not mean that he is not harmless. This man has published numerous articles and books to prove that the Holocaust did not happen, and even declared his lack of remorse “I refuse to be silenced. I am not going to allow Austria to silence me so that the rest of the world cannot hear me."
What are we teaching our future generations, then? That it is alright for them, or for others to deny such a painful history just because of the supposed freedom of speech? That it is legal to spread lies about the torture and the murder of so many Jews? If your own relative was brutally tortured and murdered and then left to die, can you honestly say that you will not mind if the murderer declared “I did not kill him. It was a complete farce!” ?
Japan did not at first admit they were softening the misdeeds of WWII, they had to be rebuked by the world. As such, and I reiterate, such checks and balances prove enough of a safeguard from ever fearing that a minority of individuals will rewrite history.
Looking towards the future is a good thing, but how can one conclude that due to a few people who maliciously deny that holocaust happened, the very incident will be wiped out of history.
Gerlynn and Zi Xin feel that if we do not stop the root cause and censor these anti-semantic beliefs, textbooks will be rewritten and the future generation will grow up thinking that the holocaust didn't exist. Perhaps that is one possible scenario, but I do not see how.
For ever website that denies the holocaust, there are millions saying that it happened. For ever book that is published by an anti-holocaust believer, there are hundreds and thousands books saying that it did. For every article that tries to ascertain that the number of jews killed were exaggerated, there are thousands of pictures to prove otherwise. How can it ever be that the evidence saying that the holocaust didn't happen will outnumber evidence that says it does, when there is already so much evidence in hand to prove the latter?
David Irving may be so bold as to say that “I refuse to be silenced. I am not going to allow Austria to silence me so that the rest of the world cannot hear me." but so long as the evidence is there, the world may hear him, but it doesn't mean that it will believe him.
The day that there are more holocaust deniers than people who acknowledge the holocaust should be the day that we truly need to reevaluate the information we have about the holocaust because I seriously doubt that FALSE information will be able to sway so many people.
Give our civilisation more credit. We won't go believing things that cannot be backed up.
i think that holocaust denial should be deemed as a criminal act because of a number of reasons.
the first reason would be that as time goes by, people would forget that such a crime existed. As time goes by, our memories of certain events will fade. sure, we might remember what has happened because it was still relatively recent. however, think of a few hundred years later, where the only references one would get of the holocaust would be through historic records and pictures. if one denies it and history events are changed, who knows what might happen in the future? as the saying goes, one learns from their mistakes. without the holocaust to serve as a reminder, the same mistake might happen again.
the second reason holocaust denial would be a crime is because the holocaust was a major crime in which many Jews died in gruesome manner. denying the holocaust would be akin to denying a crime itself. this would set a precedent as to ignoring what has happened in history.
I agree with the comments mentioned that denying the holocaust should be a crime. six million jews died during this period, and this number is significant in the sense that it is recognised that this has indeed happened in history. Also, imagine what would happen if one denied that it happen? I am sure that it will spark off sentiments among the jews because they woud either have relatives or they themsleves have gone through it. Hence, in short i think that denying the holocaust is a crime because of the reasons stated above.
Like what Cheryl said about throwing them into cold, hard prison cell but it isn't for a lifetime. It is for a short period of time only to show as a warning to the people and to show some fairness to the Jews.
About Dexter's point, memories of people dull either way. What we should preserve here in the end is an accurate portrayal of history and I think present evidence is solid enough so that the truth can remain intact without anyone being thrown into any jail for any period of time.
I feel that if we continue to criminalise the holocaust, we are sending the message that
1) Historical guilt takes precedence over freedom of speech
2) That a special segment of people should be shown with favoritism which will result in resentment against the jews to brew even more
Let's face it. Our world is not fair, but that doesn't mean that we should consider the feelings of one segment above the others just because of a mistake that happened over 40 years ago. Instead, we should let the marketplace of ideas roam free so we can all learn constructively- without the government censoring our every word.
I think whether it should be a crime depends on the country/state/community and the social system and the degree of anti-Semitism. I will take the case in Belgium as an example.
I did some research and I have found out that Belgium’s politics are different for every community and that country as a whole has a 0.3% Jewish population. I do not know exactly which community the man did this in. If it was done in a country/state/community with a large Jew population, say 40% Jewish, then a jail term should be in order as it has a higher chance of escalading into something big. However, in a country/state/community with a small Jewish population, then maybe a warning would do or at most a fine. I am not condoning this act but just looking from the government’s point of view.
I agree with Maisara and Shirley, that people are entitled to have choices even if it is wrong and that denying the holocaust does not change anything historically. However I also agree with Zi Xin and Gerlynn that the freedom of speech should not be exploited. Thus I feel that it is up to the government to set a tolerance level to anti-Semitism comments. If someone goes past that line, then he/she would be charged accordingly. This way, the Jews would know that the government is NOT against them and would be less prone to reacting hostilely, and let the government handle it.
In conclusion, whether it should be considered a crime depends on the country/state/community and if it is a crime, the appropriate punishment depends on the degree of the act.
i agree with leon on his point that different degree will entail a different punishment. however, going back to the original question, it will still be a criminal act as if people start to deny it, all the pain and sufferings that the Jews went through would be for nothing. their lives are already gone, but they left an everlasting lesson. denying it would be simply erasing that sad and tragic part form humanity's history. who knows whether it would be repeated again then?
Well, I am nearly sure every one of our ancestors sometime or another experienced a war. SO offending jewish relations to the holocaust is a very minor issue.
The thing is, it's not like the jews chose a noble death to achieve a purpose. It's not. Due to the tyranny of the Nazis, the suffered through a genocide, nothing about it denotes nobility and thus, nothing about it denotes 'wasting'. What is at hand is residual guilt, that I believe should be manifested and has been with giving land to Israel.
They may have suffered at the Nazi's hands while the world watched, but how does this warrant an infringement into our freedom of speech, so much so that people actually have to be put into jail for it? We have learned many lessons from that event, but in the end, it is solid history. Regardless of what a man says, the facts are still facts, so we will not be erasing a sad part of history, rather, we would be encouraging the exchange of ideas and setting these holocaust deniers right. That is the best win-win situation, not ignoring the ideas of people and making them illegal.
I think the reason why it is not a 'minor issue' to the Jews is because the holocaust was not a war but a GENOCIDE. They were murdered not for land or conflicting politics, but for being Jews.
I never said that it would be a minor issue for the jews, rather, I said that we should not prioritise the rights of one segment of society more than another just because of something that happened in the past.
And yes, Jews were murdered just because they were jew, but the world realised their folly and carved our Israel for the jews to live in as a result of residual guilt. On top of that, the western world is also providing enormous aid to Israel in her war against the arab nations BECAUSE of that residual guilt. Arent these steps showing that the world understands the wrong it has done against the Jews? How is it that because of that, their history takes precedence above everyone else's, so much so that they are able to infringe into a fundamental right?
I see no point as to whether denying the holocaust should be made a crime. Yes, it is unfair that people are killed just because they're Jews, but it is already all history.
But, so what if people admit to contributing to holocaust? Does it mean that they will learn their lesson after they're being punished?
Belgium man denying that holocaust did not happen. I think this is a form of freedom of speech. He has the right to say what he wants and should not be arrested unless he does actions that really harms people. However, warning him about the consequence may help. It don't have to go to the extent of criminalising him.
I still think that the denial of holocaust should be a crime. frankly speaking, the Jews are the victims of the massacre. How would they feel if their race were mass killed and after a few decades or so, it is literally deny by people.
Like what Zi Xin said "If the denial of holocaust does not becomes a crime, more and more people will begin to deny it." This could lead to so many people having the wrong mindset tat holocaust was what that had to be done during the 1940s, and that we can kill someone and get away with being punished. is this fair????
Surely we would be against the denial of such a serious massacre if we were in the shoes of the Jews, whose ancestors unfortunately got killed brutally durin the holocaust.
Therefore i suggest that it is definitely a need to take the denial of holocaust as a serious crime. Perharp as what messiah suggested, to fine them, or if worst, a few canings. This could helped in preventing the jews to react harshly, or having any hard feelings.
29 comments:
Cheryl Cheong(p0762135) of DMC1B05 strongly believes that:
I am for the decriminalising of holocaust denial, because, to put it bluntly, it is not such a big deal. What is the harm of a man standing in Belgium shouting that the holocaust did not happen? Does it really warrant him getting sent to jail? For me, I would have to say ‘no’. It seems that this debate is really about freedom of speech vs. detrimental effects if we allow these anti-semantic believes to be expressed. I feel strongly that the freedom of speech should take precedence, because sufficient checks and balances exist that will prevent us from all believing that the holocaust did not happen.
The most prevalent fear if someone denies the holocaust would be that that idea would create a sort of ‘snow-ball’ effect that one by one, we will all be swayed by that person’s argument, and in the end, sincerely believe that the holocaust did not happen. I think that this fear is clearly unfounded because it is not like we change our beliefs based on what one person says. We do research, we contemplate about it, and only then do we come to a conclusion. Historical evidence, pictures, reports all point towards the existence of the holocaust, so how will all this evidence be ignored just by the mad claims of a few people? There are not reasonable grounds for one to believe that the holocaust did not happen.
In the most extreme cases, pro-criminalisation-of-holocaust-denial believe that holocaust denial will be taken to its extremes and what will result will be similar like what is happening in Japan, where they rewrite textbooks to soften the acts of the Japanese. This will clearly never happen because of the market place of ideas. In our world today where globalisation is pertinent, how is it that we can publish our viewpoints and not have them debated upon?
The marketplace of ideas is the most efficient check and balance to put naysayers of the holocaust right and it even provides a platform for society to see two sides to the issue and decide for themselves which they would want to believe in. Japan may have tried to rewrite textbooks, but that did not stop the rest of the world from rebuking them and setting the Japanese government and its people straight. In much the same way, David Irving may have published a book about how the holocaust did not happen, but that did not stop Deborah Lipstadt from rebuking him. Society at large would have had the opportunity to see the flaws in Irving’s work just from that, so why was there the need to put him in prison in the first place?
In conclusion, the holocaust denial should be decriminalised, because at the very end of it, sufficient checks and balances exist in the marketplace of ideas that will prevent holocaust denial from escalating to become the truth.
I would beg to differ. Take the example Cheryl pointed out, a man standing in Belgium denying holocaust.
Yes, many would say there's nothing wrong about it but think about what the people who were in any way affected by the holocaust? Maybe their grandparents were killed because of the holocaust or maybe for the one simple reason, they're Jews.
It is definitely a painful history for the Jews, all anti-semitic policies. All that they have went through, if still being denied for will definitely create a lot of unhappiness among the Jews. It is as good as killing someone, get away with it and tell the world you didn't do it as the victim's family live in unjust.
As if this doesn't sound bad enough. Imagine if everyone is given the right to deny the holocaust, building the angst among the Jews. This may lead to a forming of a group which will slowly lead to discrimination and worst come to worst, violence will seep in, which is what none of us would want to see.
Secondly, if one denies holocaust, it can also mean that there may be something wrong with what is taught in school. For someone to deny confidently about the holocaust and not being ashamed by it, it can probably be due to whatever is taught in school.
If every school teaches students the wrong things then as time passes, the history of the holocaust may even be forgotten which is really unfair to the Jews who suffered a lot back then.
In conclusion, I think that denying holocaust should be a crime still as the effects can turn really sour.
I agree with Amanda, denying the holocaust should be a crime.
Since the holocaust had indeed existed and took away so many lives, why should the denial of holocaust be decriminalised? So many Jews had been murdered and it is unfair to them if it is decriminalised.
Don't those who deny the holocaust feel guilty? How could they deny it with facts and evidences staring straight into their face? If you have murdered someone you have to admit it. In this case, it is a mass killing of the Jews, why deny what had been done?
I agree with amanda and zixin that denying the holocaust should be a crime.
Of course the example that cheryl pointed out about the man standing in Belgium shouting that holocaust did not happen is not a crime in any way whatsoever, but after so much damage holocaust has caused; one simply can't disregard it totally. It is unfair to those who suffered under the destructive hands of holocaust.
When we say criminalising of holocaust denial, we mean that these people are thrown into a cold, hard prison cell, a period of their lives stripped away from them, just because they said some lies about an incident that happened over 30 years ago. What we should question ourselves is "is that fair?"
Is it fair that Dan Brown can cook up claims to write a book saying that Jesus was just a farce and be awarded for it but David Irving who cooked up some evidence to say the holocaust didn't happen cannot?
Yes, it may be hurting to those who've gone through the holocaust to see someone deny a memory so painful, but people like Zi Xin, Stella and Amanda will clearly set him straight and show him for what an idiotic bigot he is. Is it really necessary to take away his years to live with his family, his frieds, his loved ones like that? Just for a painful memory that others will correct him even if he was careless with what he said?
I agree, we cannot disregard the holocaust happened, because even if we do, other people will put us right. I feel that is sufficient- not putting people in jail over some careless wrong-mouthing.
i don't see how denying an event should be classified under criminal act.
people are entitled to choices. so if one chooses to deny Holocaust.it does not mean that Holocaust is completely wiped out from History. and furthermore, there are strong, hard evidences that show Holocaust did occur.
when one chooses to disregard such an event ever happened, it does not necessarily result in other people following suit. it's simply a matter of individual choice of whether one wants to believe the Holocaust or not.
if the jail sentence on a person is based on the fact that his views of the Holocaust have the power of influencing others and thus results in a movement or a group of followers, how is that justifiable?
it is like sentencing someone for having his own set of views and perceptions.
yes i agree that it does not do the Jews any form of justice. But there are a lot of injustices (furthermore, it's all a matter of perspectives. what is seen as justifiable to one might not be seen as justifiable to another) in this world. and denying the holocaust is not reason enough for one to be jailed.
I still think that the denial of holocaust should be a crime. If the denial of holocaust does not becomes a crime, more and more people will begin to deny it. Then, people will start to think that denying the holocaust is right and this is not true.
It is wrong to say that the holocaust did not happen, furthermore, it is about the death of such a terrifying number of people. It is very unfair to the Jews if it is decriminalised. If this happened to your ancestors, I believe that you would feel strongly against decriminalising it.
I agree with what zixin has just mentioned.
Yes, this debate may seem to be just about freedom of speech, but, this issue's depth goes back years ago, and its not just a simple issue, it involves the massacre of 6 million people, 6 million jews. That amount of deaths is just too much to deny.
Besides, by simply denying that the holocaust has happened, i think, is insensitive, especially to the jews, knowing how much has been lost, how much they've been through, especially the ones that had survived the nightmare.
If we allow denial of holocaust, more and more people would join in to deny that it ever happened. The holocaust is a huge example of what racism could lead to, hence providing a lesson to everyone from letting such horrifying acts to happen again.
I do agree a jail sentence might seem a little too harsh, given that the man was just voicing his thoughts. There could be other ways to punish a person who tries to deny the holocaust. For example, a fine? community service? and other lighter punishments. I do suggest jail, if theres repeated offence though.
I do think denying the holocaust is very insensitive to the jews who lost so much during the holocaust but enacting a law based on historical guilt just can't stand in today's world.
During the Rowanda genocide, millions of people were killed in the span of 2-3 days while the world watched and held meetings, puzzling over what to do. So many people were killed that the waters of rover Rowanda turned red, stained by blood. Why isn't it a crime to say that the Rowanda Genocide didn't happen? One would be offending the people of Rowanda just as well, so in the issue of fairness,why doesn't the same rules apply?
How about my ancestors in China who sloghed and died by that stupid wall that didn't even serve to keep the Mongolians out. Do you know how many Chinese people died by that wall, tortured to their breaking point, with minimal food and water to eat? I think it's a great insult to my ancestors that tourist go there everyday to take pictures and see how far up the wall they can climb. If we allow the same rules of historical guilt to dictate how we legislate laws, then shouldn't we be throwing people who say that the Chinese didn't suffer to build that wall into jail?
Holocaust denial should not be a crime.
I agree that publishing content denying the holocaust should be punishable by law as denying the holocaust disrespects people that died and suffering families as a repercussion of the holocaust.
However, how is it logical that someone standing in the street saying that the holocaust did not happen simply be arrested and thrown into prison?
People should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech to an extent. They should not and cannot be forced to entirely change their opinions on an issue. Disallowing people to speak their minds is an invasion of privacy and oppression!!
Arresting someone simply because they made a casual denial of the holocaust is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Holocaust denial being a crime in the past may have been right, because it is away to keep in mind the 6 million deaths that took place against the jews then. However, 60 years down the road, is it still such a big deal?
If people want to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then they are just plain stupid because they don't want to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Since when have we started arresting and putting people into jail for being plain stupid?
If you are worried of the snowball effect towards thinking the crime never happened, let me warn you of another snowball effect that would take place if you DO criminalise Holocaust Denial. It would lead to the denial of other crimes also being criminalised. Crimes such as what the Japanese did to the Chinese, what the Americans did to the Iraqis or Afghanistanis, or like the Rwandan Genocide. If denying all these crimes were made unlawful, then u would be stifling any form of open debate on our history and past. You are oppressing the people. Would you want to live in such a world where you are not allowed to say anything about your past and have to keep all your thoughts bottled up inside of you in the fear that saying the wrong thing would land you in jail?
Therefore, in this scenario, we are in a lose-lose situation. Whether we criminalise it or not, we will face a loss in some way. Thus it is important for us just to measure the losses and see which one would leave behind less debri than the other. In this case, criminalising Holocaust Denial would just leave behind a whole trail of debri that you will never be able to pick up, while decriminalising it would just leave a small pile of stones and rubble that can be quickly swept away.
Thus is tand for decriminalising Holocaust Denial as it is better for the people.
It does seem outrageous to throw someone in jail simply because they are expressing their opinions. As quoted by Jolene, “Arresting someone simply because they made a casual denial of the holocaust is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill”.
But if we delve deeper into the issue, we have to ask ourselves whether it is merely the expression of opinions. Ask the people who deny the Holocaust and I doubt they will state that they are just making ‘casual denials’.
These are the 5 claims of the Holocaust Denial, as stated by http://www.adl.org/holocaust/response.asp:
1) The Holocaust Did Not Occur Because There Is No Single "Master Plan" for Jewish Annihilation
2) There Were No Gas Chambers Used for Mass Murder at Auschwitz and Other Camps
3) Holocaust Scholars Rely on the Testimony of Survivors Because There Is No Objective Documentation Proving the Nazi Genocide
4) There Was No Net Loss of Jewish Lives Between 1941 and 1945
5) The Nuremberg Trials Were a "Farce of Justice" Staged for the Benefit of the Jews
How can it be said that what they are doing are just ‘casual denials’, when they have invested so much time and effort into these statements? They have done their own ‘research’, come up with statistics to support their claims, they have turned a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence, and have written numerous books and articles about it. They sincerely believe that it did not happen and may even be willing to sacrifice their lives for these beliefs. These are not merely the expression of opinions.
These are malicious attempts to cover up history, to change facts, to plant roots of doubt into people’s minds and to discount the numerous lives that have been lost in so terrible a way. We ought not to ignore them and dismiss them as innocent, casual claims when as what Zixin has said earlier, could well develop into something bigger and more violent over the years if such ideology is not curbed.
Cheryl has said earlier that jailing someone for the Holocaust Denial is a violation of the freedom of speech, but I beg to differ. I do believe that freedom of speech should not be exploited; it should be exercised with a sense of responsibility. When someone attempts to change the entire face of history and truth, I think he or she has to be stopped. After all, don’t parents punish their children when they tell lies as well? The people who deny the holocaust are going out to say that ‘there were no gas chambers’, ‘there were no lives lost’, and ‘the Nuremberg Trials were to benefit the Jews’. Allowing people to deny the holocaust is deeply unfair to the Jews, who suffered for so long and in such terrible ways.
Cheryl has mentioned “it's a great insult to my ancestors that tourists go there everyday to take pictures and see how far up the wall they can climb. If we allow the same rules of historical guilt to dictate how we legislate laws, then shouldn't we be throwing people who say that the Chinese didn't suffer to build that wall into jail?”. I do agree that it is very sad if the people or tourists were to climb up there, snap photos and completely forget that many died or suffered to build it. That said, there are many attractions in Singapore like the Fort Canning Park which tell of the events that occurred during the Japanese Occupation. I feel that such attractions are fine, because they serve as a reminder to Singaporeans, educational tool, and evidence that the Japanese Occupation did occur. However, we should note that the tourists and the people who visit these places aren’t saying that the people didn’t suffer – rather they may be visiting them and taking photos to serve as a somber reminder.
In conclusion, I do believe that it should be a crime to deny the Holocaust.
I personally feel that denying the Holocaust should not be considered a crime although it is wrong.
I agree with Mai that people are entitled to their own views. As quoted from Mai "if one chooses to deny Holocaust.it does not mean that Holocaust is completely wiped out from History." It all boils down to our freedom of speech. Even if we chose to deny it, the evidences around us are enough to knock some sense into our brains. Why consider it a crime if everyone is subjected to their own views on a particular matter? Take David Irwing for example, he was just peacefully expressing himself but received a three-year jail sentence for a crime he committed 16 years ago.
Yes it is definitely unfair to the family members of the 6 million people who were killed just because they were Jews. All the trauma and pain they suffered as a result of the Holocaust. I agree that the Nazis did murder millions of Jews but putting people in jail for something they said out of foolishness is simply going overboard.
In conclusion, I feel that it should not be a crime to deny the Holocaust. Just because people have certain sets of views, it does not mean that the whole world will follow suit and agree that the Holocaust did not happen.
I agree with Gerlynn that freedom of speech should not be exploited and it should be exercised with a sense of responsibility.
I think that what Cheryl had said about the China wall is completely different from the denial of holocaust. I also think that the case of Japan textbook's version of the War World 2 is different from the denial of holocaust. At least, they admits it.
Though most of us know that the holocaust indeed existed, will our future generation know that? If denying the holocaust is not made a crime, more people will make use of the freedom of speech to spread their views and influence others. As people starts to publish more and more books saying that the holocaust did not exist, it will begin to confuse the future generation.
When the amount of evidence saying that the holocaust did not exists equals to the amount of evidence saying that the holocaust existed...When the number of people denying the holocaust equals to the number of people saying that the holocaust did happened, whom should they believe?
Therefore, the denial of holocaust should be made a crime. Why should there be a different treatment of the issue just because it happened a long time ago?
I agree with what Zixin has said earlier, “Though most of us know that the holocaust indeed existed, will our future generations know that?”
A lot of these “Holocaust Denial” books and articles have surfaced on the web, even though they may have been banned. We may be mature enough to know better, because the war occurred closer to our time, but what about our children? They will get their information from sources like websites or books, and it does not take a lot to influence them into believing that the Holocaust did not happen, particularly if they are young and are easily swayed.
True, the whole world may not follow suit and believe that the Holocaust did not happen, but it did not take the whole world to believe that the Jews were an inferior race before their extermination occurred during World War 2 either. It took only a group of people, and one person to lead them – Adolf Hitler. I’m sure that many must have thought that he was a peaceful politician, out only to get a fair deal for Germany after the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. We must not underestimate the power of the people who are making such Holocaust Denials – out of a tiny spark can burst a mighty flame.
Contrary to what Shirley has said earlier about David Irwing, he was not simply making “peaceful expressions”. True, he has not committed any murders or anything of that sort to prove his point, but that does not mean that he is not harmless. This man has published numerous articles and books to prove that the Holocaust did not happen, and even declared his lack of remorse “I refuse to be silenced. I am not going to allow Austria to silence me so that the rest of the world cannot hear me."
What are we teaching our future generations, then? That it is alright for them, or for others to deny such a painful history just because of the supposed freedom of speech? That it is legal to spread lies about the torture and the murder of so many Jews? If your own relative was brutally tortured and murdered and then left to die, can you honestly say that you will not mind if the murderer declared “I did not kill him. It was a complete farce!” ?
Japan did not at first admit they were softening the misdeeds of WWII, they had to be rebuked by the world. As such, and I reiterate, such checks and balances prove enough of a safeguard from ever fearing that a minority of individuals will rewrite history.
Looking towards the future is a good thing, but how can one conclude that due to a few people who maliciously deny that holocaust happened, the very incident will be wiped out of history.
Gerlynn and Zi Xin feel that if we do not stop the root cause and censor these anti-semantic beliefs, textbooks will be rewritten and the future generation will grow up thinking that the holocaust didn't exist. Perhaps that is one possible scenario, but I do not see how.
For ever website that denies the holocaust, there are millions saying that it happened. For ever book that is published by an anti-holocaust believer, there are hundreds and thousands books saying that it did. For every article that tries to ascertain that the number of jews killed were exaggerated, there are thousands of pictures to prove otherwise. How can it ever be that the evidence saying that the holocaust didn't happen will outnumber evidence that says it does, when there is already so much evidence in hand to prove the latter?
David Irving may be so bold as to say that “I refuse to be silenced. I am not going to allow Austria to silence me so that the rest of the world cannot hear me." but so long as the evidence is there, the world may hear him, but it doesn't mean that it will believe him.
The day that there are more holocaust deniers than people who acknowledge the holocaust should be the day that we truly need to reevaluate the information we have about the holocaust because I seriously doubt that FALSE information will be able to sway so many people.
Give our civilisation more credit. We won't go believing things that cannot be backed up.
Dexter Tay:
i think that holocaust denial should be deemed as a criminal act because of a number of reasons.
the first reason would be that as time goes by, people would forget that such a crime existed. As time goes by, our memories of certain events will fade. sure, we might remember what has happened because it was still relatively recent. however, think of a few hundred years later, where the only references one would get of the holocaust would be through historic records and pictures. if one denies it and history events are changed, who knows what might happen in the future? as the saying goes, one learns from their mistakes. without the holocaust to serve as a reminder, the same mistake might happen again.
the second reason holocaust denial would be a crime is because the holocaust was a major crime in which many Jews died in gruesome manner. denying the holocaust would be akin to denying a crime itself. this would set a precedent as to ignoring what has happened in history.
I agree with the comments mentioned that denying the holocaust should be a crime. six million jews died during this period, and this number is significant in the sense that it is recognised that this has indeed happened in history. Also, imagine what would happen if one denied that it happen? I am sure that it will spark off sentiments among the jews because they woud either have relatives or they themsleves have gone through it. Hence, in short i think that denying the holocaust is a crime because of the reasons stated above.
Like what Cheryl said about throwing them into cold, hard prison cell but it isn't for a lifetime. It is for a short period of time only to show as a warning to the people and to show some fairness to the Jews.
About Dexter's point, memories of people dull either way. What we should preserve here in the end is an accurate portrayal of history and I think present evidence is solid enough so that the truth can remain intact without anyone being thrown into any jail for any period of time.
I feel that if we continue to criminalise the holocaust, we are sending the message that
1) Historical guilt takes precedence over freedom of speech
2) That a special segment of people should be shown with favoritism which will result in resentment against the jews to brew even more
Let's face it. Our world is not fair, but that doesn't mean that we should consider the feelings of one segment above the others just because of a mistake that happened over 40 years ago. Instead, we should let the marketplace of ideas roam free so we can all learn constructively- without the government censoring our every word.
I think whether it should be a crime depends on the country/state/community and the social system and the degree of anti-Semitism. I will take the case in Belgium as an example.
I did some research and I have found out that Belgium’s politics are different for every community and that country as a whole has a 0.3% Jewish population. I do not know exactly which community the man did this in. If it was done in a country/state/community with a large Jew population, say 40% Jewish, then a jail term should be in order as it has a higher chance of escalading into something big. However, in a country/state/community with a small Jewish population, then maybe a warning would do or at most a fine. I am not condoning this act but just looking from the government’s point of view.
I agree with Maisara and Shirley, that people are entitled to have choices even if it is wrong and that denying the holocaust does not change anything historically. However I also agree with Zi Xin and Gerlynn that the freedom of speech should not be exploited. Thus I feel that it is up to the government to set a tolerance level to anti-Semitism comments. If someone goes past that line, then he/she would be charged accordingly. This way, the Jews would know that the government is NOT against them and would be less prone to reacting hostilely, and let the government handle it.
In conclusion, whether it should be considered a crime depends on the country/state/community and if it is a crime, the appropriate punishment depends on the degree of the act.
Leon
i agree with leon on his point that different degree will entail a different punishment. however, going back to the original question, it will still be a criminal act as if people start to deny it, all the pain and sufferings that the Jews went through would be for nothing. their lives are already gone, but they left an everlasting lesson. denying it would be simply erasing that sad and tragic part form humanity's history. who knows whether it would be repeated again then?
Well, I am nearly sure every one of our ancestors sometime or another experienced a war. SO offending jewish relations to the holocaust is a very minor issue.
The thing is, it's not like the jews chose a noble death to achieve a purpose. It's not. Due to the tyranny of the Nazis, the suffered through a genocide, nothing about it denotes nobility and thus, nothing about it denotes 'wasting'. What is at hand is residual guilt, that I believe should be manifested and has been with giving land to Israel.
They may have suffered at the Nazi's hands while the world watched, but how does this warrant an infringement into our freedom of speech, so much so that people actually have to be put into jail for it? We have learned many lessons from that event, but in the end, it is solid history. Regardless of what a man says, the facts are still facts, so we will not be erasing a sad part of history, rather, we would be encouraging the exchange of ideas and setting these holocaust deniers right. That is the best win-win situation, not ignoring the ideas of people and making them illegal.
I think the reason why it is not a 'minor issue' to the Jews is because the holocaust was not a war but a GENOCIDE. They were murdered not for land or conflicting politics, but for being Jews.
Leon
I never said that it would be a minor issue for the jews, rather, I said that we should not prioritise the rights of one segment of society more than another just because of something that happened in the past.
And yes, Jews were murdered just because they were jew, but the world realised their folly and carved our Israel for the jews to live in as a result of residual guilt. On top of that, the western world is also providing enormous aid to Israel in her war against the arab nations BECAUSE of that residual guilt. Arent these steps showing that the world understands the wrong it has done against the Jews? How is it that because of that, their history takes precedence above everyone else's, so much so that they are able to infringe into a fundamental right?
I see no point as to whether denying the holocaust should be made a crime. Yes, it is unfair that people are killed just because they're Jews, but it is already all history.
But, so what if people admit to contributing to holocaust? Does it mean that they will learn their lesson after they're being punished?
Belgium man denying that holocaust did not happen. I think this is a form of freedom of speech. He has the right to say what he wants and should not be arrested unless he does actions that really harms people. However, warning him about the consequence may help. It don't have to go to the extent of criminalising him.
I still think that the denial of holocaust should be a crime. frankly speaking, the Jews are the victims of the massacre. How would they feel if their race were mass killed and after a few decades or so, it is literally deny by people.
Like what Zi Xin said "If the denial of holocaust does not becomes a crime, more and more people will begin to deny it." This could lead to so many people having the wrong mindset tat holocaust was what that had to be done during the 1940s, and that we can kill someone and get away with being punished. is this fair????
Surely we would be against the denial of such a serious massacre if we were in the shoes of the Jews, whose ancestors unfortunately got killed brutally durin the holocaust.
Therefore i suggest that it is definitely a need to take the denial of holocaust as a serious crime. Perharp as what messiah suggested, to fine them, or if worst, a few canings. This could helped in preventing the jews to react harshly, or having any hard feelings.
gary
Post a Comment