dreolin
Rookie
- Nov 19, 2013
- 647
- 77
- 0
- Banned
- #141
Indeed: the Wiki article describes the different legal systems involved and explains the 'omission' in the US. It also describes the debate between different(actual credentialed) historians.
The various nations have made such laws based on their own 'national' perceptions. Australia has such a law - despite having a minute Jewish population. The passing of such laws cannot be reasonably attributed to 'Jewish pressure'.....but of course 'reasonably' des not apply to bigots and conspiranutter 'True Believers'.
Israel has such a law because it is home to the greatest percentage of Holocaust survivors. I think it's understandable on that basis, never mind anyone's religion.....
I suspect if one were to research the topic, that each nation enacting such Holocaust denial laws had its own particular reasons for doing so - whether or not one agrees with those reasons, I do not see any evidence of any 'outside pressure' being involved.
Is "outside pressure" your loophole phrase?
A lot of the laws mentioned aren't Holocaust denial laws per se but are laws in broader scope that roll holocaust denial in.
I think, in many cases, Jewish groups or organizations are behind the prosecutions under such laws.
I am not really sure what your point is.
Also, you may want to look into the Holocaust Denial laws in Australia and see which groups are fighting against their repeal...mostly Jewish groups or Jewish individuals. So what, but why try to shove it of on someone else and say they are not behind it or have little to do with it, if that is what you are saying.
Fighting against the repeal -IMHO - is not the same thing as suggesting such laws in the first place. And I was unaware that repeal was even being considered in Australia, or anyplace else: do you have a link?
My 'point', such as it was, was that *individual nations have created such laws as those individual nations' citizens thought best, for their (national) individual reasons* I do not see a reason to regard the enactment of such laws as anything but revulsion and a means to signal rejection of the Nazi enterprise.
I have no idea what your bolded "question" is supposed to mean.
As for the prosecution of violation of such laws being due to 'Jewish groups' - I doubt it. DA's do not proceed unless there is a good chance of obtaining a conviction: if there had been no violation, there'd be no case to prosecute.
If you disapprove of such prosecution, that of course is your right. I wonder, do you feel any sense of disgust when someone proclaims that the Irish wildly exaggerated the extent of the Famine, or claims the conditions on the 'coffin ships' were also exaggerated - or perhaps due to the actions of the Irish themselves? (NB: I absolutely hold no such view, I am simply attempting to give a possible 'comparative' to much Holocaust denial as we've read in this very thread....)
Yes, MHunterB, all history should be subject to state censor review and legislation enacted to prohibit disagreement with the accepted version.
Jewish groups push for the prosecution under such laws. Other groups ignore them. How many aboriginal Australians are bitchin' and moanin' about idiots distorting their history. Very few because most who distort their history are regarded as what they are...idiots.
I disregard, for the most part, distortions of the starvation (what you so ignorantly and stupidly call a "famine' that occurred in a food exporting cvountry) and certainly would not want laws forbidding the questioning of it...or perhaps you accept the version that 8,000,000 died or left Ireland.
That is cool though. let's enact legislation that restricts free speech, but only if it is for the right reasons...things that revulse us.