We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.

Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.
People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.
The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.


So the short version of that answer is No Holocaust Denial hurts nobody.

Also the goal of Western Powers (US, Britain) has never been to defuse tensions or create an enduring peace between Israel and Arabs. It's been to block any sort of peace for the past 35 years. That's why it's called a Peace Process, because it's what we're engaged in, and it's never ending.

>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.


Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.

People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.

The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.

I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone. This is the prime reason why I love the United States, because you can say whatever you want and the state cannot intervene (that's the idea anyways and it was hard fought).

Why does anyone care about Amadinejads opinions on the matter of the holocaust, it's completely irrelevant. It's nothing more than a soundbite to be used against a dictator that's in a very important region and out of our control which is unacceptable.

Chavez may be a bit of a hypocrite but by how much? Do we want to compare George Bushes crimes with Amadinejads? It might actually be quite revealing...except the part where we find out how culpable we are.

1. Analogies are not literal. The Salem Witches are an appropriate comparison, because violence was used in the persecution of others. The poster was not suggesting that opening a truck door and burning someone at the stake are equivalent, but they are based on the same principle - that the ends justify the means - if someone is "immoral" per your stance, you have the okay to violently persecute them. Failing to realize this is failing to understand the concept of analogy.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. For a crime to have a victim, you must be able to identify a victim in all possible manifestations of that crime. If there is even one counter example, it is a victimless crime. Think to yourself for a moment, can you dream up any possible circumstance wherein one person could pay another for sex, and neither would feel victimized? To help, flip it around - put yourself in the potential-victims shoes - are there any instances in which you would have sex with someone for money, and not feel like a victim? How about $1 trillion to have sex with that one girl at your work, you know who I'm talking about. Would you feel victimized? This is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot argue it. If there is a victim in only certain circumstances, it is another, different crime that was committed. Human trafficking is one example used here - another example would be patting someone on the back - legal after a football game, illegal if you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Prostitution is a victimless crime, end of story.

3. Videotaping in a public place is not a crime. The (legal) line was crossed when the "do-gooder" opened the truck without permission of the owner. The fact that he was videotaping them naked, having sex, makes it a sex crime. Voyeurism, peeping-tom-ism, is a sex crime in America - and rightfully so. What he did was equivalent (in principle) to kicking open a bathroom stall and videotaping someone on the toilet. The do-gooder here should justly be charged, and registered as a sex offender.

4. Intolerance is not bad, in fact its very good, its the process by which we define our entire culture. Examples of things we are rightly intolerant of in increasing order of severity: not washing your hands after the bathroom, not covering your mouth when you cough, interrupting others while they are speaking, infidelity, racism, holocaust-denial. Do you go out and burn an racist at the stake? Do you slap people when they don't wash their hands? Do you throw people out windows when they interrupt you? Do you kick open a door and videotape them? Do you beat them with a stick? No...you choose not to be their friend, or associate with them, or ignore their views - just like any other jackass on the street. That is how society and culture are defined. Imagine life without intolerance - where all societal action was open-game and nothing was (nonviolently) condemned. Life would be an unending episode of Jerry Springer.

5. Intolerance as expressed through violence, however, is not okay for the very simple reason that violence is not okay. It has nothing to do with the intolerance motivating it, because as we just realized, intolerance is a good thing. An act of violence always has a victim. Opening a truck door that is not yours is an act of violence, as much as kicking in someones front door. They are different in degree, not kind. Denying the holocaust is not kosher, and you should be very intolerant of such a person, much more so that someone who doesn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom for that matter. But what they are doing is different in degree, not kind. You have every right to nonviolently protest - to videotape them publicly denying the holocaust and put it on youtube, and forward it to their boss. However, you don't have any more right to burn a holocaust denier at the stake than you do to burn someone who doesn't wash their hands. A failure to understand this is a failure to differentiate between concepts of varying degree, and concepts of varying kind.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The UK government banned the entry of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for his extremist views yet I don't see you complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed do I? I mean his views should also be allowed in the market place of ideas. What about Holocaust deniers in Germany, France and Netherlands. The double standard of censorship is there so spare me the freedom of speech arguments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sheik Yusuf has explicitly called for the murder of specific individuals and groups of people. As I noted above, that does not fall under the protections of free speech. As for things such as holocaust denial, you're absolutely right. It would be hypocritical to disallow one and not the other. But wouldn't the more sensible tack be to condemn both instances of censorship, instead of supporting one because of the existence of the other?

Isn't it crazy that holocaust-denial is a thought crime? It's actually illegal in some countries to *question* the historical record?

He makes his argument very well, I have to give him that.

I also don't see the connection between Holocaust-denial and antisemitism. Not believing the Holocaust happened may make you a lot of things (crazy, stupid, ignorant) but it doesn't mean you hate the Jews.

It doesn't sound like he's actually a Holocaust denier as much as he just doesn't believe it happened the way we've all been taught.

>> ^Thumpa28:
This MP is an idiot with a long history of supporting Palestinian causes. The BBC are protraying it a s a split in jewish opinion brought on by the conflict in Gaza like he's suddenly found a conscience. usual drivel.
"german word for war ´krieg´, means to steal(invade and take away)! so you are sayin that the goal of all of hitlers invasions were "extermination of inferior races and persons"? you need to remove what ever is stuck up your arse, so you might start to think clearly one day...."
What loony planet are you on tofu? Seriously, you dont think the nazis were all about roungding up and exterminating inferior races in the occupied terrtories? Go and read up on the invasion of russia, to claim anything else is right up there with holocaust denial.
jeez, I dont know why im bothering, looking for serious political insight on videosift is like trying to learn about the migration patterns of geese by reading a daffy duck comic.


so now we have another 'P'member that thinks the nazis motivation for war was "extermination of inferior races and persons". im lost. is it just me or have there been a lot of ´P´members defending israel in here recently. strange.

This MP is an idiot with a long history of supporting Palestinian causes. The BBC are protraying it a s a split in jewish opinion brought on by the conflict in Gaza like he's suddenly found a conscience. usual drivel.

"german word for war ´krieg´, means to steal(invade and take away)! so you are sayin that the goal of all of hitlers invasions were "extermination of inferior races and persons"? you need to remove what ever is stuck up your arse, so you might start to think clearly one day...."

What loony planet are you on tofu? Seriously, you dont think the nazis were all about roungding up and exterminating inferior races in the occupied terrtories? Go and read up on the invasion of russia, to claim anything else is right up there with holocaust denial.

jeez, I dont know why im bothering, looking for serious political insight on videosift is like trying to learn about the migration patterns of geese by reading a daffy duck comic.

>> ^Yehoshua:
Solvent, for someone who says "question, think, and understand," you sure seem to eat up the holocaust denial stuff. I mean, did they pay off all of those elderly jews to lie to the Shoah Foundation? No, I forgot, we're all "in" on the conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoah_Foundation


I believe Solvent's point is that the holocaust has been used countless times to justify extremist action by Israel. The "Never again" idea, when in effect Israel is committing the very actions itself towards another set of people.

Anti-semitism is also used to nullify any criticism put forward against Israel. Countless authors and commentators have been labelled as such when all they were doing was looking at Israel foreign policy. I have been called anti-semitic countless times because of my stance towards this issue. Even though am a misanthrope.

Being labeled anti-semitic is a very effective way of mislabeling and nulling valid concerns brought forward, just as much as being labeled anti-American, communist, liberal, and so on. As it brings preconceived notions in the audience.

Solvent, for someone who says "question, think, and understand," you sure seem to eat up the holocaust denial stuff. I mean, did they pay off all of those elderly jews to lie to the Shoah Foundation? No, I forgot, we're all "in" on the conspiracy.

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

I'm the one who's mislead?

Holocaust denial, 2005 "In a 14 December speech in the city of Zahedan in southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust took place in Europe and Europeans feel so guilty about it, then that is where Israel should be located, state television reported. "They have created a myth today and they call it the massacre of the Jews [the Holocaust],"
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to is Isreal, 2005 "This week, Hamas head Khalid Mish'al visited Tehran. Designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," ... Mish'al told Ahmadinejad on 12 December that Hamas appreciates Iran's stance against Israel generally and the president's "insistence on the illegitimate nature of Israel,""
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to Isreal, 2005 and 2001 "Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world. He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel. ... Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Threat to Isreal, June 2nd 2008, Ahmadinejad "The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

"Death to America" is still a very popular chant. Here it is at a recent rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

Here's an article talking about its use in parliament recently
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Here's an article mentioning Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase recently
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

I'm not condoning what the US and CIA did in Iran. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that Iran might actually be dangerous.