- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,516
- Reaction score
- 8,230
- Location
- Montreal, QC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
OTTAWA - Holocaust denial is to be outlawed in Canada, in a further effort to stamp out rising antisemitism.
The federal government is set to make it a criminal offence to make a statement denying the Holocaust took place or condoning or downplaying the killing of Jews by the Nazi regime, except in a private conversation.
Ministers plan to use a bill enacting the budget to swiftly change the Criminal Code, budget documents show.
The move to outlaw Holocaust denial comes as MPs and anti-hate groups warn about the rise of white-supremacism and antisemitism in Canada.
“Jewish Canadians comprise one per cent of the Canadian population yet are the target of 62 per cent of all religiously motivated hate crimes,” said Richard Marceau, vice-president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. “We live in a time of rising antisemitism.”
Canada will join a string of European countries, including Germany, Greece, France, Belgium and the Czech Republic, which have already prohibited Holocaust denial.
Six million Jews were systematically killed in Nazi-occupied Europe while Hitler was in power, along with other groups, such as Roma.
“Holocaust denial and distortion constitute a cruel assault on memory, truth, and justice - an antisemitic libel to cover up the worst crime in history - and thereby a cruel and mocking rebuke to Holocaust survivors and their legacy,” said Irwin Cotler, the prime minister's special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism.
The budget earmarked $5.6 million over five years to support Cotler's office.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said “there is no place for antisemitism and Holocaust denial in Canada.”
“That's why we've pledged to prohibit the wilful promotion of antisemitism through condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust,” Mendicino added. “The Holocaust was one of the darkest chapters in human history. We must preserve its memory, combat contemporary antisemitism and be unequivocal when we say: never again.”
The government move to change the law follows the introduction by Saskatoon Tory MP Kevin Waugh of a private member's bill prohibiting Holocaust denial earlier this year.
Waugh said the government proposal was “word for word” the same as in his bill and he was surprised to see it in the budget.
But the Conservative MP said having the government push through the law was a “win for everybody.”
“There is no place for racism in this country,” he said.
Waugh said he would not withdraw his bill, which has its second reading debate at the end of April in the Commons, even though banning Holocaust denial will be part of the budget bill.
He said he wanted to ensure the change to the Criminal Code is enacted as soon as possible.
The budget does not say what the penalty would be for a person convicted of Holocaust denial. Waugh's bill proposes up to two years in prison.
The NDP has said it will vote for the budget, under the terms of its confidence and supply pact with the Liberals, which will mean the bill will pass through the Commons.
If the law is changed through the budget bill first, Waugh's bill aiming to prohibit denying the Holocaust happened in statements will be rendered redundant.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond for a request for comment.
The budget set aside more than $70 million for initiatives benefiting Canada's Jewish community.
This includes $20 million for the relocation and expansion of the Montreal Holocaust Museum and $2.5 million to support the Sarah and Chaim Neuberger Holocaust Education Centre in Toronto.'
Hearing about how pozzed "conservatives" in other western countries are makes me appreciate the GOP more. They aren't worth much but at least they support free speech most of the time.The provision would make it a criminal act to publicly deny or minimize the Holocaust and the killing of Jews by the Nazis. The wording being used is taken from a bill originally proposed by a Conservative MP . . .
Karl Popper said long ago that we are not required to "tolerate the intolerant" because the intolerant are adept at USING the TOOLS of tolerance to ELIMINATE tolerance.From CP24:
The provision would make it a criminal act to publicly deny or minimize the Holocaust and the killing of Jews by the Nazis. The wording being used is taken from a bill originally proposed by a Conservative MP, which is still being debated in parliament so it will pass one way or another, just a matter of what passes first, cannot imagine the standalone bill facing much opposition. Since it is also part of the larger budget bill it will pass that way for certain.
Personally I think it is a great idea, join other countries in fighting Holocaust denial.
Karl Popper said long ago that we are not required to "tolerate the intolerant" because the intolerant are adept at USING the TOOLS of tolerance to ELIMINATE tolerance.
View attachment 67384757
"The Open Society and its Enemies"
If it copies the other bill the penalty will be up to two years in prison.Yes, that kind of public comment should be illegal.
The punishment should be a fine, no jail time.
The Holocaust was so horrible (and unbelievable) that no one has the right to publicly deny it happened.
I understand that in France, it is already illegal to deny certain historical events. (One scholar some years back was fined for denying that the treatment of Armenians by Turkey during World War I was a genocide.)
Karl Popper said long ago that we are not required to "tolerate the intolerant" because the intolerant are adept at USING the TOOLS of tolerance to ELIMINATE tolerance.
View attachment 67384757
"The Open Society and its Enemies"
Then you can label anyone you don't like or disagree with as "intolerant"
The law is a bad idea.From CP24:
The provision would make it a criminal act to publicly deny or minimize the Holocaust and the killing of Jews by the Nazis. The wording being used is taken from a bill originally proposed by a Conservative MP, which is still being debated in parliament so it will pass one way or another, just a matter of what passes first, cannot imagine the standalone bill facing much opposition. Since it is also part of the larger budget bill it will pass that way for certain.
Personally I think it is a great idea, join other countries in fighting Holocaust denial.
The law is a bad idea.
If you prevent people from expressing hatred and bad ideas, it doesn't make them magically go away. If people don't express such things you don't know who they are, so you can't protect yourself from them or change their minds. This law just forces people with those beliefs underground where those beliefs go unchallenged, and they can fester and become dangerous.
.
Then you can label anyone you don't like or disagree with as "intolerant"
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Then YOU could, possibly. But you're you and no one expects you to understand words and their definitions.
Here's a hint though, rational people don't make arguments like yours.
They're applying Popper's reasoning correctly. Popper's view, as you quoted, was that "intolerance" (meaning dissent from liberalism) should be allowed so long as liberals can defeat it via argument. If they should ever lose the argument, they have the right, according to Popper, to use force. Needless to say, they've gotten a lot worse at arguing since the 40's.Yes, that's exactly why some idiot leftist created that dumbass image which completely misrepresents Popper's argument. He never supported laws against free speech like these idiotic holocaust denial laws.
Popper:
"Unwise" means not good in my book.
That means don't tolerate those who are willing to use violence instead of reason.
They're applying Popper's reasoning correctly. Popper's view, as you quoted, was that "intolerance" (meaning dissent from liberalism) should be allowed so long as liberals can defeat it via argument.
If they should ever lose the argument, they have the right, according to Popper, to use force. Needless to say, they've gotten a lot worse at arguing since the 40's.
Love it...you step off the tarmac and right into the quicksand.Actually they do and that's why the US has free speech and no other country does
Which is why they deny that their opponents are rational.No, dissent should be allowed as long as all parties use reason and not force.
The same text you quoted:I don't know where you got that from. Feel free to quote the text where you believe Popper is suggesting that.
It is a common liberal conceit that non-liberals are irrational (and perhaps violent) by definition. But nowhere does his reasoning require this; the stated principle is that "intolerance" must be repressed by one means or another. The only precondition he places on the use of force, and the only one that follows from his expressed principles, is that rational argument have failed to do the job.In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Which is why they deny that their opponents are rational.
"they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument"
Give me a break. Both parties at times get their panties in a knot over what some people say.Hearing about how pozzed "conservatives" in other western countries are makes me appreciate the GOP more. They aren't worth much but at least they support free speech most of the time.
The same text you quoted:
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
It is a common liberal conceit that non-liberals are irrational (and perhaps violent) by definition. But nowhere does his reasoning require this; the stated principle is that "intolerance" must be repressed by one means or another. The only precondition he places on the use of force, and the only one that follows from his expressed principles, is that rational argument have failed to do the job.
Give me a break. Both parties at times get their panties in a knot over what some people say.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?