Reply With QuoteWhat Holocaust?
I'm inspired, of course, by this current story concerning the bishop who has been ejected from the vatican for denying the holocaust.
Now I can understand, perhaps, why the vatican don't want this potential tar-brush hanging around their gang-hut, but why is holocaust denial such a huge deal? Why isn't it seen as just, y'know, a bit silly?
In some European countries you can be imprisoned for trivialising or denying the holocaust (as David Irving found out).
Is it because hearing the opinion usually indicates you're listening to an anti-semite? Even so, I don't think racist opinions should ever be illegal. Or maybe there's an element of not wanting that kind of thinking to get a foothold in Europe again, in which case it's worryingly close to book-burning.
Willies.
What Holocaust?
It's just an opinion, isn't it? It might be wrong, but I don't get why someone doesn't have the right to say it.
I used to be an animal, but these days I'm retired.Originally Posted by Mwezzi
I don't deny it.
I just say it's not as bad as they'd like us to think it was.
Do it or don't. I've got places to be.
Reading 'Maus' has completely robbed me of my ability to make jokes about the Holocaust. I have no distance anymore.
Maybe it's just still too sensitive a subject for a lot of people?
To part answer your question however, wiki threw this up:
Gregory H. Stanton, formerly of the US State Department and the founder of Genocide Watch, lists denial as the final stage of a genocide development: "Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims."
Do it or don't. I've got places to be.
Haha, tell me about it.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Political expediency is a terrible thing. For example, it suits to recognise the Shoah as some sort of massive, ahistorical slaughter that dropped from the sky - witness how many people regard it as a "unique event" - but talk of the colonisation of the Americas is very rarely done in the same terms. How do you measure genocide? When does one miserable event become more miserable than similar others? If it's a numbers game then there are plenty of examples throughout history where more people have been killed, both in absolute and in relative quantities. The worst thing to come out of these kinds of laws is that they actually make it easier to deny the historical context of the Holocaust, and instead see it like some sort of Mordor in the Lord of the Rings-style battle that was World War II.
I guess by writing the above I could be guilty of "trivialising" the Holocaust, but then most Western countries are quite used to trivialising genocide and social Darwinism when it suits them (see East Timor, Tuskegee Syphillis Study among others).
if anything, someone denying the holocaust makes it easier to flag them as a goose-stepper, making them less dangerous i'd have thought.
in addition to which, doesn't it weaken someone's stance to backtrack on the principles a regime believed in and acted on?
"Yeah damn straight we killed millions of them and we'd do it again because _______" would worry me far more!
Jews are liars.
Greedy liars.
Do it or don't. I've got places to be.
Give me your tears gypsy.
Kiddin!
I have had nothing but the utmost respect for the Jewish community. Cause I know if I don't treat the jews well, they'd put the sheeny curse on me.
Do it or don't. I've got places to be.
it was what 60 years ago?
move on people
26+6=1
Posting Permissions 
Bookmarks