• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holocaust denial, downplaying the Nazis' murder of Jews to be outlawed in Canada

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,498
Reaction score
8,165
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From CP24:
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.'

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 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 . . .
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.
 
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.

Paradox_of_Tolerance.jpg

"The Open Society and its Enemies"
 
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"

I didn't write a paper on it, but that was always my intuitive sense. And I took enough philosophy courses to double major in it, if such a thing existed. Only an "ism" says we should as a society tolerate intolerance because otherwise we're hypocrites. The only function that can serve is protecting intolerance, and hatred.

If one has identified a position is evil, never play the game it invites.



The 1st Amd. does what it should: allows someone to say they believe the things that merit societal condemnation, not punish them with state force. It's the only protection they deserve, but of course it doesn't stop them from pretending that non-governmental negative consequences of their speech are horrid impositions.

But thanks to the 1st, I would not go as far as Canada. I wouldn't criminalize the speech itself. Utter the speech and commit crimes against the target of that speech, well... let a jury suss that one out.
 
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.)
 
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.)
If it copies the other bill the penalty will be up to two years in prison.
 
Then you can label anyone you don't like or disagree with as "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.

Intolerance is a word defined as "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own."
Further, Popper specifically says that any group or movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside the law.

Only persons with your type of defective and juvenile grasp of logic would interpret that as "labeling anyone you don't like or disagree with as intolerant".
 
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.

.
 
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.

.

Holocaust denial has been debunked hundreds, of not thousands, of times. These people don’t care about the facts. Much like the Lost Cause, it’s an excuse to “justify” their hatred.
 
Lol, let's change the minds of nazis! We are so avant guarde.
 
Then you can label anyone you don't like or disagree with as "intolerant"

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:

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.

"Unwise" means not good in my book.

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.

That means don't tolerate those who are willing to use violence instead of reason.
 
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.

Actually they do and that's why the US has free speech and no other country does
 
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.
 
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.

No, dissent should be allowed as long as all parties use reason and not force.

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.

I don't know where you got that from. Feel free to quote the text where you believe Popper is suggesting that.
 
My ideas are probably incompatible with the first amendment, but...

I personally believe it should be a crime to publicly incite hatred with speech, but I think people should be allowed to deny history as individuals, even publicly - with some caveats. I think laws like this are well-intended, but someone may actually truly believe that history somehow got it wrong and we shouldn't criminalize stupidity and ignorance.

I'd certainly be open to some caveats though, like no denying the Holocaust as part of a school curriculum or broadcast news program - things were people expect to be exposed to historical facts.
 
Actually they do and that's why the US has free speech and no other country does
Love it...you step off the tarmac and right into the quicksand.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, it only means that the government can't mete out legal consequences.

I'm not arguing Canada's decision.
In fact, I don't even think that TALKING Holocaust denial is or should be actionable. I don't think Canada's law is all that great an idea.
Naturally I'm sure you expected that I liked it, because again, that's who you are and that's what you do.
You sure do love putting folks in boxes.

Now here's the gist of it.
Speaking about Holocaust denial in public is free speech.
Electing politicians who use it as part of their platform, might even be free speech.
However, Holocaust denial has NEVER ended with mere speech, has it?
No, it hasn't.
See, this isn't just about "speech" and it never is, is it?
Holocaust deniers have a goal, and the entire free world knows what those goals are.
 
No, dissent should be allowed as long as all parties use reason and not force.
Which is why they deny that their opponents are rational.
I don't know where you got that from. Feel free to quote the text where you believe Popper is suggesting that.
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.
 
Which is why they deny that their opponents are rational.
"they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument"

Would you say that Vladimir Putin is permitting his followers to listen to rational argument right now?
 
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.
Give me a break. Both parties at times get their panties in a knot over what some people say.
 
Turns out Canadians can run their country however they like, without our approval.
 
WWII vets are like "Denial? WTF????"
 
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.

You're looking at "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;" as if it stands on its own, but it doesn't. He's saying force might be necessary because "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."

He's saying force is justified against people who choose to use force instead of reason. He is not saying force is justified if "rational argument has failed to do the job" whatever that means.
 
Give me a break. Both parties at times get their panties in a knot over what some people say.

True, but one party is constantly trying to shut people up over what they say.
 
Just another example showing that Canadians do not value free speech the way Americans do.
 
Back
Top Bottom