Full Version: Iran Hosts Conference of Holocaust Deniers
In the world of international politics, there is little that can shock me anymore. This, however, leaves me speechless.
Link
It doesn't surprise me that David Duke was there, but I was startled by these folks:
Some have asked the United Nations to take action against Ahmadinejad.
Link
To be debated:
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Link
QUOTE
Iran’s hard-line president said Tuesday that Israel will one day be “wiped out” as the Soviet Union was, drawing applause from participants in a conference casting doubt on the Holocaust.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments were likely to further fuel the outcry prompted by the two-day gathering, which has gathered some of Europe’s and the United States’ best-known Holocaust deniers.
. . .
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and cast doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-Western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a “myth” used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.
“The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana, told The Associated Press.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments were likely to further fuel the outcry prompted by the two-day gathering, which has gathered some of Europe’s and the United States’ best-known Holocaust deniers.
. . .
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and cast doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-Western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a “myth” used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.
“The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana, told The Associated Press.
It doesn't surprise me that David Duke was there, but I was startled by these folks:
QUOTE
. . .six anti-Israel Jewish participants, dressed in black ultra-Orthodox coats and hats.
. . .
Rabbi Moshe David Weiss, one of six members attending from the group Jews United Against Zionism, told delegates, “We don’t want to deny the killing of Jews in World War II, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed.”
“They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression,” he said. His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law.
. . .
Rabbi Moshe David Weiss, one of six members attending from the group Jews United Against Zionism, told delegates, “We don’t want to deny the killing of Jews in World War II, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed.”
“They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression,” he said. His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law.
Some have asked the United Nations to take action against Ahmadinejad.
Link
QUOTE
Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.
The U.N. International Court of Criminal Justice should charge Ahmadinejad for his threats against the United States, for calling for the destruction of Israel and for instigating discrimination against Christians and Jews, the group said.
The U.N. International Court of Criminal Justice should charge Ahmadinejad for his threats against the United States, for calling for the destruction of Israel and for instigating discrimination against Christians and Jews, the group said.
To be debated:
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
I'm not sure. From this extract at least, he isn't so much inciting the destruction of Israel or the people who live there, as much as predicting its downfall. By drawing an analogy to the Soviet Union, he isn't really calling for anyone to die, as the people living in Russia, Belarus, and the other former Soviet republics are more or less the same as they were under the Soviets.
However, he is certainly dancing a jig along the line between acceptable (if not approvable) speech and incitement.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
Up to a point, yes they are - particularly inside Europe, as that's where the Holocaust took place, at the hands of Europeans. It is a commonplace of humanity that to deny something happened, or to deny any responsibility for the happening, is the surest way of guaranteeing that something will happen again. In individuals, a wife-beater can deny his behaviour, or say he was provoked, but until he admits that the beatings took place and admits responsibility for them, he hasn't got a hope of forgoing them in the future; you cannot prevent yourself from doing something if you cannot imagine the circumstances in which you might do it.
It is an irony that the people in Europe most likely these days to attempt to deny the Holocaust are the vocal fundamentalist minority of the already small minority of Europeans that are Muslim, and that the most likely victims (given current dynamics) of any future European holocaust are the Muslim minority there.
However...
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Personally I think that, inside our democracies, the best way of combatting the stupid, the mendacious and the downright vicious is to give them full freedom of speech - that way there is ample opportunity for them to be shown for what they are through normal democratic rights of reply. The role of the state should not be to prevent idiotic or dangerous things from being said, or to punish those that say them, but to guarantee the other side of the argument has free access to channels that allow them to cast light onto the subject.
There is, of course, a big BUT...
Not everywhere in the world has freedom of speech, especially in reply to things that the government says or does. I doubt very much whether pro-Israeli voices in Iran are given much opportunity to reply to the things Ahmadinejad says.
And, in today's global media marketplace, a Holocaust denier in Europe, reported in the European media, can be reported in Iran (or wherever), while the (much stronger) case for the Holocaust that would combat the argument in Europe through right of reply would likely not be broadcast at all in such places, skewing the debate.
As such, I think there is a case to be made for supranational (e.g. UN) legislation being framed differently from how one would frame it if everyone lived under the same broad freedoms that we in the West take so seriously.
Since a UN (for example) law saying that it was a crime not to broadcast both sides of a story would be open to endless abuses under all sorts of mischevious circumstances, a straightforward ban on such things as Holocaust denial (I'd extend it to denials of, for example, Islamic complicity in the African slave trade, or of it's very existence) might just be the only workable solution. Not ideal, but it's not an ideal world.
I'm not sure. From this extract at least, he isn't so much inciting the destruction of Israel or the people who live there, as much as predicting its downfall. By drawing an analogy to the Soviet Union, he isn't really calling for anyone to die, as the people living in Russia, Belarus, and the other former Soviet republics are more or less the same as they were under the Soviets.
However, he is certainly dancing a jig along the line between acceptable (if not approvable) speech and incitement.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
Up to a point, yes they are - particularly inside Europe, as that's where the Holocaust took place, at the hands of Europeans. It is a commonplace of humanity that to deny something happened, or to deny any responsibility for the happening, is the surest way of guaranteeing that something will happen again. In individuals, a wife-beater can deny his behaviour, or say he was provoked, but until he admits that the beatings took place and admits responsibility for them, he hasn't got a hope of forgoing them in the future; you cannot prevent yourself from doing something if you cannot imagine the circumstances in which you might do it.
It is an irony that the people in Europe most likely these days to attempt to deny the Holocaust are the vocal fundamentalist minority of the already small minority of Europeans that are Muslim, and that the most likely victims (given current dynamics) of any future European holocaust are the Muslim minority there.
However...
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Personally I think that, inside our democracies, the best way of combatting the stupid, the mendacious and the downright vicious is to give them full freedom of speech - that way there is ample opportunity for them to be shown for what they are through normal democratic rights of reply. The role of the state should not be to prevent idiotic or dangerous things from being said, or to punish those that say them, but to guarantee the other side of the argument has free access to channels that allow them to cast light onto the subject.
There is, of course, a big BUT...
Not everywhere in the world has freedom of speech, especially in reply to things that the government says or does. I doubt very much whether pro-Israeli voices in Iran are given much opportunity to reply to the things Ahmadinejad says.
And, in today's global media marketplace, a Holocaust denier in Europe, reported in the European media, can be reported in Iran (or wherever), while the (much stronger) case for the Holocaust that would combat the argument in Europe through right of reply would likely not be broadcast at all in such places, skewing the debate.
As such, I think there is a case to be made for supranational (e.g. UN) legislation being framed differently from how one would frame it if everyone lived under the same broad freedoms that we in the West take so seriously.
Since a UN (for example) law saying that it was a crime not to broadcast both sides of a story would be open to endless abuses under all sorts of mischevious circumstances, a straightforward ban on such things as Holocaust denial (I'd extend it to denials of, for example, Islamic complicity in the African slave trade, or of it's very existence) might just be the only workable solution. Not ideal, but it's not an ideal world.
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
For "inciting Genocide"? No. For other off-topic things, yes. He isn't saying anything new. He has stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" before. There is nothing special about this moment. Rather than "charging" him with anything speech-wise, the UN should have a policy of limited tolerance toward his actions. For starters, there should be real consequences to violating the NPT, arming an organization that the UN has demanded disarm, ect.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
I've become convinced that they are needed in Europe. I use the clear and present danger test. If the speech has a high likelihood of inciting violence (radio Rwanda is an extreme example) it shouldn't be permitted. We have no need for such laws here at this time because we have a different history. Can a leader be charged by an international government for "hate speech"? Crimes against humanity yes, but speech? Sounds like a dangerous precedent.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Ridicule. Expose the deniers for what they are. There is limitless evidence of the Holocaust.
For "inciting Genocide"? No. For other off-topic things, yes. He isn't saying anything new. He has stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" before. There is nothing special about this moment. Rather than "charging" him with anything speech-wise, the UN should have a policy of limited tolerance toward his actions. For starters, there should be real consequences to violating the NPT, arming an organization that the UN has demanded disarm, ect.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
I've become convinced that they are needed in Europe. I use the clear and present danger test. If the speech has a high likelihood of inciting violence (radio Rwanda is an extreme example) it shouldn't be permitted. We have no need for such laws here at this time because we have a different history. Can a leader be charged by an international government for "hate speech"? Crimes against humanity yes, but speech? Sounds like a dangerous precedent.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Ridicule. Expose the deniers for what they are. There is limitless evidence of the Holocaust.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 15 2006, 10:54 AM) 
To be debated:
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
1. No. He's acting within his rights as a head of state. He may be violent, horrible etc but for sovereignty to have meaning, it must protect even those we despise (right up to the point where they move from words to actions or material support of actions). On a practical matter, the UN is fairly limited in what it can do in any case. A "charge" in the UN is pretty thin gruel and would likely not be approved by the body in any case (I can think of several countries that would vote against and a couple Security Council members who would likely veto). I also feel that we would lose the PR war in such a case (I can already hear Ahdadinejad or someone saying "when we defend our religion against them, they call us violent, but they would beat us down rather than let us speak the truth about their religion" or some foolishness). The bigger we make this, the more credibility we give it. I'd say treat the conference the way most nations have been, as deplorable but ultimately the actions of a few extremists and something not worthy of the time or attention of serious nations or people.
2. No. Ahmadinejad is either playing at the worst sort of racial/religious politics, a deluded fool or both. Those things, however, are not crimes and we should be careful in making them such. There are plenty of folks (probably a couple on this board) who would be happy to make the same case against more than a few American leaders. In the end, I support the freedom of anyone to be a jerk, racist, idiot etc. right up to the point where you reach the clear and present danger test. As much as I deplore what this fool is saying and as concerned I am that he would love to rain destruction down not only on Israel but on the Jews as a people, it's his right to say these things. Others, of course, have the right to inflict costs on him and the government for which he speaks (sanctions, etc). Additionally, should he ACT on these threats, others have the complete right to intervene on behalf of his targets. Speech is free, action can be quite expensive. Further, I get very nervous at politically motivated "prosecutions", even when I agree with the politics. I can see a time, even in the US, where certain views that we now hold dear become minority views and I'd hate to see precedent set for making the asking of uncomfortable questions illegal; and that means allowing some nasty folks to say nasty, untruthful things and answering them back full voice. I also feel that making denial of the Holocaust illegal gives the opinion too much status. Why should something as false and ridiculous need to be legally limited? We almost give the lie equal weight with historical fact by claiming the law must preference one over the other (for example, we don't need a law to make it a crime to believe in foolish conspiracy theories).
3. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant. The evidence of the Holocaust is legion (as others have said) both in the killings and the motivations behind them. The focus should be not on restricting the speech of these fools but of countering it with evidence. Bury them under the weight of history. Granted, those who don't want to be convinced won't be, but neither will thought-crime legislation prevent them from believing it. In the end, we cannot "combat" Holocaust deniers, we can only paint them as the fools they are. Drive those beliefs underground and the fester without answer and that strikes me as more dangerous.
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
Give us the full text of the speech and then I'll decide. It does seem that even the American media can cherry-pick passages thereby not providing the full context. Do I believe that Ahmadinejad believes the worst things about the Jews? Absolutely. Should he be charged by the UN for things he may have said? I can imagine plenty of scenarios.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
Based only on the info you've provided in the question, no. Anyone should be able to deny anything as vociferously as they want. The question should be whether those opinions sufficiently incite others to violence.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
It should not be a "combat." The rest of us who do believe the Holocaust happened must go on sharing this information with others for as long as we can. This message should not be framed with hate & revenge but rather with soberness, humility, and a single-mindedness never to let it happen again.
Give us the full text of the speech and then I'll decide. It does seem that even the American media can cherry-pick passages thereby not providing the full context. Do I believe that Ahmadinejad believes the worst things about the Jews? Absolutely. Should he be charged by the UN for things he may have said? I can imagine plenty of scenarios.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
Based only on the info you've provided in the question, no. Anyone should be able to deny anything as vociferously as they want. The question should be whether those opinions sufficiently incite others to violence.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
It should not be a "combat." The rest of us who do believe the Holocaust happened must go on sharing this information with others for as long as we can. This message should not be framed with hate & revenge but rather with soberness, humility, and a single-mindedness never to let it happen again.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 15 2006, 04:54 AM)
To be debated:
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
I don't think there's anything to charge. I think the UN should worry about policing itself before it charges anyone with anything
QUOTE
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
Laws against ideas are silly. People will continue to think what they will.
QUOTE
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Mockery. Let them talk in the face of reality. Do what Howard Stern does - let the lunatics speak out freely and see how moronic their positions are
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler. the only reason he danize the holocaust is because he wonts to repeat it and draw sympathy and support from the jewish public. he's not just going to atack Isriel but later he will attack the us. it is only a mater of time and we must ready our selves. when his nuclear reactor goes up we only have 6 months un tell he has plutonium for a dirty bomb. why are we in iraq when Iran is more of a threat to everyone!?
QUOTE(dragonsoul @ Dec 15 2006, 03:25 PM)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler. the only reason he danize the holocaust is because he wonts to repeat it and draw sympathy and support from the jewish public. he's not just going to atack Isriel but later he will attack the us. it is only a mater of time and we must ready our selves. when his nuclear reactor goes up we only have 6 months un tell he has plutonium for a dirty bomb. why are we in iraq when Iran is more of a threat to everyone!?
Maybe I should draw a map for you, or better maybe use one already available.
IMAGE LINK
I really think Iran has been the target all along.
Edited to remove image in accordance with forum Rules. - Jaime
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
There will likely come a resolution or two that will justify air attacks against Iranian infrastructure. Hopefully this will remain a war of words.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
No.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Debate. These people are gathering together for a little belief festival. They can believe anything they want, no matter how little evidence they have to support such belief, but it won't hold up to anyone who is prepared to knock down their belief.
David Duke is in Iran? Can we keep him there?
There will likely come a resolution or two that will justify air attacks against Iranian infrastructure. Hopefully this will remain a war of words.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
No.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Debate. These people are gathering together for a little belief festival. They can believe anything they want, no matter how little evidence they have to support such belief, but it won't hold up to anyone who is prepared to knock down their belief.
David Duke is in Iran? Can we keep him there?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 16 2006, 03:01 AM)
Debate. These people are gathering together for a little belief festival. They can believe anything they want, no matter how little evidence they have to support such belief, but it won't hold up to anyone who is prepared to knock down their belief.
Doesn't this conference show that debate is not sufficient to combat this poisonous concept? I mean in the US we have allowed debate on the Holocaust ever since the Holocaust, and yet there are a number of Americans at this 'anti-holocaust' conference. If open debate worked at eradicating this, then it should be gone by now. But here we have the first ever anti-holocaust conference taking place.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 15 2006, 07:43 AM)
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
I've become convinced that they are needed in Europe. I use the clear and present danger test. If the speech has a high likelihood of inciting violence (radio Rwanda is an extreme example) it shouldn't be permitted. We have no need for such laws here at this time because we have a different history. Can a leader be charged by an international government for "hate speech"? Crimes against humanity yes, but speech? Sounds like a dangerous precedent.
I've become convinced that they are needed in Europe. I use the clear and present danger test. If the speech has a high likelihood of inciting violence (radio Rwanda is an extreme example) it shouldn't be permitted. We have no need for such laws here at this time because we have a different history. Can a leader be charged by an international government for "hate speech"? Crimes against humanity yes, but speech? Sounds like a dangerous precedent.
I couldn't disagree more. If someone's inciting violence, charge him with inciting violence. There's no need for the law to preselect which particular assertions are likely to incite violence, because in every instance, it depends on the specific context. You actually increase the danger of violence with laws like that because, to borrow a proverb, when you outlaw certain assertions, only outlaws will make those assertions, or even entertain them long enough to debunk them.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Here's where I have to break with the general opinion on this thread. Those who want to promote the truth (about anything, not just the Holocaust) should welcome challenges to it. Those challenges provide an opportunity to demonstrate it more clearly. For example, I've always basically accepted the fact, without thinking about it too much, that we really did send men to the moon, but I became more convinced of it than ever after seeing the conspiracy theories debunked.
There are only two ways in which a lie can spread over a civilized society and become destructive: 1. When the establishment promotes it. 2. When the establishment tries to suppress it.
I have to agree with Blackstone- the best place for this is Iran, and now. It only helps the holocaust historians- to have the deniers out in the open, and looking stupid. It is similar to the KKK parades- let them parade and let us jeer and make fun of thier ignorance, it does more harm than good to thier movement- it is the whispers among the ignorant that allow hollocaust deniers to continue to grow as a movement. In teh open, they can be made fun of and, rightly so, ridiculed.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Dec 16 2006, 01:00 PM)
Here's where I have to break with the general opinion on this thread. Those who want to promote the truth (about anything, not just the Holocaust) should welcome challenges to it. Those challenges provide an opportunity to demonstrate it more clearly. For example, I've always basically accepted the fact, without thinking about it too much, that we really did send men to the moon, but I became more convinced of it than ever after seeing the conspiracy theories debunked.
There are only two ways in which a lie can spread over a civilized society and become destructive: 1. When the establishment promotes it. 2. When the establishment tries to suppress it.
For once, I agree with Blackstone.
In the marketplace of ideas, I don't think they will get very far.
The addition of David Duke lends an aura of a carnival atmosphere to all this.
Like those people who camp out waiting for the "second coming," this too shall pass.
To be debated:
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
Charged with what? And then what would they do about it? The UN is nearly worthless in dealing with conflict as we have seen again and again so why even ask.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
That is up to them I guess. Certainly the Germans feel badly enough about the events to have the laws.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
There is none and no need. As we saw students in Iran laughed and this clown and burned his picture.
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
Charged with what? And then what would they do about it? The UN is nearly worthless in dealing with conflict as we have seen again and again so why even ask.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
That is up to them I guess. Certainly the Germans feel badly enough about the events to have the laws.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
There is none and no need. As we saw students in Iran laughed and this clown and burned his picture.
1. Should Ahmadinejad be charged by the United Nations?
I find the prospect that the UN would actually be able to take him into custody highly dubious. Essentially to charge him would be to just vocally reprimand him, something which a multitude of different nations have already done, and which has essentially been proven useless.
Perhaps it would be better, if every point made in his conference denoting the holocausts reality, was solidly refuted in a letter sent to him. That would undermine his credibility a lot more then just shouting "shut up" has.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
I suppose so. They do inhibit the spread of denial, and with it anti-semitism. However, such laws represent a dangerous precedent of denial of free speech in the countries with them.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Prohibition where possible, refutation where not.
Overall, we oughtn't just keep shouting "shut up" to people who we have no ability to restrain. Just because they perhaps don't deserve in a idealistic sense to be addressed, does not mean that best end would not be served if they were.
I find the prospect that the UN would actually be able to take him into custody highly dubious. Essentially to charge him would be to just vocally reprimand him, something which a multitude of different nations have already done, and which has essentially been proven useless.
Perhaps it would be better, if every point made in his conference denoting the holocausts reality, was solidly refuted in a letter sent to him. That would undermine his credibility a lot more then just shouting "shut up" has.
2. Are laws against denying the Holocaust, not uncommon in Europe, justified?
I suppose so. They do inhibit the spread of denial, and with it anti-semitism. However, such laws represent a dangerous precedent of denial of free speech in the countries with them.
3. What is the best way to combat Holocaust denial?
Prohibition where possible, refutation where not.
Overall, we oughtn't just keep shouting "shut up" to people who we have no ability to restrain. Just because they perhaps don't deserve in a idealistic sense to be addressed, does not mean that best end would not be served if they were.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.