Living in a theocracy

Clearly satisfied with the impending bankruptcy of the country, and corpulent with the excesses of state-subsidised benefits for their lofty positions, the politicians of this fair island are turning their minds to the really important matters facing their beleaguered people: Fining them for thinking.

WE ARE awful eejits really. How could anyone possibly believe that the Department of Justice is seriously planning to revive the crime of blasphemy for the 21st century?

A little more awareness of the historical context might have prompted a simple question: what year is this? 2009. And what happened a hundred years ago in 1909? Three Irish people made a deliberate :daisy: of the blasphemy laws, exposed the idiocy of trying to enforce them and delivered a fatal blow to the intellectual assumptions on which they are based.

We should have realised that a man as cultured as Dermot Ahern would come up with a novel and provocative way to commemorate this glorious centenary.

I look forward to the first case brought on behalf of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there is one thing to be more relied upon than the absurdity cretinism of the Irish political class, it is the ability of the Irish people to humiliate such pompous :daisy: through the ancient and much lauded weapon of bitter satire.

(More background).

Meanwhile, I think I'm off to the comparatively liberal paradise of Iran. :wall:

Our minister of the justice department Hirsch Ballin, or Hirschbollah as we call him here, tried that crap here as well. A law against blasphemy, that is when it's time to remember remember the fith ah well you get it.

We had blasphemy laws here 'til 1952, when our high court decided blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech.

Didn't you Irishers have a national vote and decide to NOT have a national religion, hence making blasphemy moot? I thought I remembered that from the 70's. My Dad was livid: "I can see 'no state religion' in the US, but Ireland? C'mon!!"

People like this wrongfully assume that you can counter discrimination and bigotry by throwing freedom of speech out of the window. To make it even worse, they also think that religious people are more deserving of protection than the handicapped or people with different skin colours.

As Fragony said, this is somewhat of a topic in the Netherlands too. Our previous minister of justice even had the gall to raise the subject right after Theo van Gogh was murdered by an islamic extremist :furious3:

Alright guys, I am putting your freedom of speech to test: Holocaust denial. Should saying that you deny the Holocaust has happen land you in prison?

I believe the law is absurd and it shocks me to the extreme. If it were not the Jews who were the subject of the law, I would not think such thing is possible. But out of all the minorities I the world, without a doubt, the Jews are the most powerful one. Still, one is basically prosecuted for thinking/believing in something here.

Only during Stalin's time was USSR as oppressive as this. And even then everyone joked and slandered Stalin, just in close circles, where no snitches were found. But then again, Holocaust denial is the same way I suppose. Those neo-Nazis have teir own exclusive circles.

So what do you think guys? Should Holocaust denial remain outlawed? It is freedom of speech, and it is not a straight insult. Sure, most people do not agree with that point-of-view, but everyone has a right to an opinion, especially one concerning history. Profanity and straight-up racism is one thing, but even though the deniers are mostly anti-Semitic, they should still have a right to a view. That is my position. What is yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Alright guys, I am putting your freedom of speech to test: Holocaust denial. Should saying that you deny the Holocaust has happen land you in prison?

---

Of course not.

Holocaust denial shouldn't be outlawed. Let the idiot present his argument so we can shoot it down :2thumbsup:. So what if a bunch of Neo-Nazis spout stupid stuff about the Holocaust never occuring? Arresting them for it only makes their little minds think the government is out to "get them". What next? Arrest people for denying the Armenian Genocide? The Indian Wars? The Gulags?

Why this "holocaust deniers" has something to do with blasphemy? It is quite a different subject...:dizzy2:
The holocaust deniers have a political aim, the rehabilitation of Nazism. This goes in pair with communism killed more than Nazism and Stalin worst than Hitler. And Hitler just pre-empted Stalin potential aggression...
The problem with blasphemy is some people want to impose their religious views on others. That started with the "rights" for women to wear a portable jail, then it went on ban on some lessons at school and sex segregation...
They failed on most of the targets but they carry on.
Fortunately for France, a judge had said that the right of blasphemy is recognized in this country. A French citizen has the right to criticized a religion and to say openly that he/she find religion stupid and just good for who want to believe in them.
And some find his opinion offensive so tought...:beam:

Blasphemers may have a political aim - as Banquo's article points out, the famed blasphemers were attempting to attack social laws, mores, and customs that they disagreed with. That is largely political.

If you have freedom of speech, you are allowed to deny God and the Holocaust in the same breath.

"If you have freedom of speech, you are allowed to deny God and the Holocaust in the same breath. "
Nope. In Iran you can't deny God and you can deny the Holocaust.
And to deny the Holocaust is to a way to agree with a Aggressive, Criminal, Racist and Xenophobic Political Regime. And that is a crime in most of the civilized countries...:beam:
I am in fact quite sure that Holocaust deniers and Religious Extremists are in the same side, well, except the Jewish extremists or course... But the Pope making the Croat Stepinac a Saint is one of the things which talks to me.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"If you have freedom of speech, you are allowed to deny God and the Holocaust in the same breath. "
Nope. In Iran you can't deny God and you can deny the Holocaust.

---

Then they do not have what I consider appopriate freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And to deny the Holocaust is to a way to agree with a Aggressive, Criminal, Racist and Xenophobic Political Regime. And that is a crime in most of the civilized countries...:beam:

---

Glad I live in barbarism then. Here we are free to join the Nazi party and campaign for office on their platform if we so desire. I think those who do so are abject idiots -- and I am entitled to let them know that publicly.

Unless and until such individuals attempt to deny other's their rights, or incite violence and thereby constitute a clear and present danger, they are entitled to say their piece -- however loathsome or insipid it may be.

That's freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And to deny the Holocaust is to a way to agree with a Aggressive, Criminal, Racist and Xenophobic Political Regime. And that is a crime in most of the civilized countries...:beam:

---

Most likely, but not necesarily. Should be able to deny everything, the holocaust, grass being green, water being wet. Not sure how the law is here, doubt they would get very far prosecuting a holocaust denier even if there would be a law against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

This goes in pair with communism killed more than Nazism

---

It did - how is that on par with Holocaust denial?

Quote:

---

Stalin worst than Hitler.

---

Debateable - how is that on par with Holocaust denial?

my general view on holocaust denial is that you should be allowed to deny it (in other words, dont throw them in jail) but if their views go hand in hand with promoting nazism and other stuff like that, then thats something to be concerned about.
i just think the nations that ban it are concerned with their image.

"Then they do not have what I consider appopriate freedom of speech." True:shame:
"Glad I live in barbarism then" Well. Up to you. Personally I am happy that they are not able to rape and burn again like they did in my village (probably the SS Handshar, bosnian Division) not so long time ago.
"Unless and until such individuals attempt to deny other's their rights, or incite violence". Er, that is pretty all the Nazi program isn't it? :inquisitive: Racism, extermination, slavery and violence as a tool of power. And here nobody can pretend it is just a talk, a platform, because it is exactly what was implemented...
So actually, at what point will you take action to prevent things to start again? When they will take power? Or when they will start to reimpose racial laws? Or building the Camps? Or terrorizing opposition with Storm troopers? Beating up? Deadly Accidents by too enthusiastic members? Just asking....:beam:

"on par with Holocaust denial" Pair, not par. Going together: Holocaust deniers are in fact trying to diminish Nazism murders and increase Communist one in order to make Nazism acceptable...:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"on par with Holocaust denial" Pair, not par NO. Going together: Holocaust deniers are in fact trying to diminish Nazism murders and increase Communist one in order to make Nazism acceptable...:beam:

---

So? Falls perfectly under freedom of speech in my book.

"Falls perfectly under freedom of speech in my book" On mine as well. To compare pears and apple as well you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Falls perfectly under freedom of speech in my book" On mine as well. To compare pears and apple as well you know.

---

not sure I understand you there..

"not sure I understand you there": It is as much usefully to compare two murderous regimes than to compare 2 others things. The crimes of one don't make the other more acceptable. Or the taste of one fruit makes the other better or worst, or tasteless.
The problem with Holocaust deniers claim is it is easy to fall in the trap. Look, we started a debate about blasphemy and we are debating of the relevance of holocaust deniers...:dizzy2:

They are related. In essence the point is wether you can censor someone because other people are or might be offended. This is entirely the point of blasphemy laws in western countries and a large part of holocaust laws as well.

I think it's very simple, you can't claim to be wronged when someone says something that doesn't directly concern you as a person. People belonging to a minortity shouldn't be able to sue someone because he/she said something bad about that minority, nor should it be punishable under law.

As for holocaust denial: I can understand that people who survived it are shocked and hurt emotionally by it. But at the same time it isn't a crime to glorify slavery or to deny that the Gulag archipel existed. Plus I really don't see how people who think it's acceptable for a government to ban certain views of history can legitimately complain when the Turkish government jails people who speak about the Armenian genocide for instance.

"In essence the point is wether you can censor someone because other people are or might be offended. This is entirely the point of blasphemy laws in western countries and a large part of holocaust laws as well." Er, I disagee on this. Holocaust deniers are somehow saying that a crime didn't exist. They in fact are saying that all documents proving it are forgery and that Nuremberg Trial was a farce. They just deny the fact that survivors are survivors. It is not about feelings. It is about facts.
So, each time one of the deniers talk, he/she is able to prove his/her point in front of a Court of Justice. They, of course, failled each time.

Blasphemy can offend religious people. And the definition of it is given by the Offended Ones. So of course, they tailor a nice definition of it.
In their view a woman in mini shirt offends them so she should be ban to wear it because women should be attractive or should be modest, in their terms and conditions... It is where they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

" "Unless and until such individuals attempt to deny other's their rights, or incite violence". Er, that is pretty all the Nazi program isn't it? :inquisitive: Racism, extermination, slavery and violence as a tool of power. And here nobody can pretend it is just a talk, a platform, because it is exactly what was implemented...

---

What I am saying is that they have the right to advocate such racist policies or even to lobby peacefully for ammending the Constitution to have their despicable racist ethos enshrined as the norm for our society. The very moment they incite violence, or worse begin to enact it, they should be squelched. Obviously, groups advocating such extreme positions are usually (and correctly) under a greater level of surveillance than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"In essence the point is wether you can censor someone because other people are or might be offended. This is entirely the point of blasphemy laws in western countries and a large part of holocaust laws as well." Er, I disagee on this. Holocaust deniers are somehow saying that a crime didn't exist. They in fact are saying that all documents proving it are forgery and that Nuremberg Trial was a farce. They just deny the fact that survivors are survivors. It is not about feelings. It is about facts.
So, each time one of the deniers talk, he/she is able to prove his/her point in front of a Court of Justice. They, of course, failled each time.

Blasphemy can offend religious people. And the definition of it is given by the Offended Ones. So of course, they tailor a nice definition of it.
In their view a woman in mini shirt offends them so she should be ban to wear it because women should be attractive or should be modest, in their terms and conditions... It is where they win.

---

It's not considered criminal to deny that other crimes took place or to question other historical events, so you'll have to wonder what sets holocaust denial apart. The most common reason cited is preventing nazi sympathisers from gathering support again. I think that this is futile because national socialism is discredited anyway so it's unlikely that massive amounts of people would flock to its banner. It's possible that another movement very similar to national socialism will rise that doesn't reference to the nazis or their symbols, but they wouldn't be affected by these laws (except some German laws concerning "radicals" in general)

I think that the real reason why anti-nazi legislation continues to exist (not: enacted in the first place) is to spare the holocaust survivors. They have a far better case than the blasphemer hunters, but I don't think it should be a reason to curtail freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"In essence the point is wether you can censor someone because other people are or might be offended. This is entirely the point of blasphemy laws in western countries and a large part of holocaust laws as well." Er, I disagee on this. Holocaust deniers are somehow saying that a crime didn't exist. They in fact are saying that all documents proving it are forgery and that Nuremberg Trial was a farce. They just deny the fact that survivors are survivors. It is not about feelings. It is about facts.
So, each time one of the deniers talk, he/she is able to prove his/her point in front of a Court of Justice. They, of course, failled each time.

Blasphemy can offend religious people. And the definition of it is given by the Offended Ones. So of course, they tailor a nice definition of it.
In their view a woman in mini shirt offends them so she should be ban to wear it because women should be attractive or should be modest, in their terms and conditions... It is where they win.

---

The idea is that it isn't against the law to hold an incorrect idea or belief. Should it be against the law to deny other facts besides the Holocaust?

To be honest I can't see this being passed far more important stuff to do round here. Typical though the religous types didnt even ask for this but someone decides to do it anyway. It smells to me more like a preemptive way of the goverment muzzling any offence to at least one religon that gets very worked up over Danish cartoons. Technically the Irish constitution is supposed to have a blasphemy law but it was never really defined so legally could only be hazily enforced. Ah well Hail Holy Mother of Mercy etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The idea is that it isn't against the law to hold an incorrect idea or belief. Should it be against the law to deny other facts besides the Holocaust?

---

Obviously Holocaust denial should be legal.

I should be allowed to hold any oppinion I want including ones that are abhorrent and repugnant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"on par with Holocaust denial" Pair, not par. Going together: Holocaust deniers are in fact trying to diminish Nazism murders and increase Communist one in order to make Nazism acceptable...:beam:

---

The point is that you don't need to increase communist murders or decrease Nazi ones to say that communism killed many, many times more people than Nazism does. That doesn't make either system right.

Though I see where you are coming from and the point you are trying to make, it is historically accurate to say that communists killed more than Nazis.

"to hold any opinion " The fact is it is not an opinion. It is a political statement in support of a regime (based on abhorrent values) which planned an extermination.
So, the real question is "do you want that every criminal regime/politic been free to do their propaganda ?".
Then, if yes, when do you will start to resist if they come on power (and by what means?), knowing that it will be most probably the last free election?...:idea2:
Because if you accept the idea they have the right to expose their ideal, you accept the fact that they can be elected and their power would be a legitimate one. Evil, but legitimate. Then, will you accept as the will of the majority the extermination of all minorities, races, sexual, and others potential victims. Yes?
Because if you don't, it is a little bit hypocritical. OK, they have the right to think but they can't do what they think. I support the right of opinion until it doesn't challenge my opinion? Is it how you see things?

For me, they just have the right to shut-up and to stay in their bins. I know what they did, and in doing it they lost all their rights. They were the vanquish and by their own ideal that is the proof they didn't deserve power. They were beaten by the Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevik pact, so be it.
I will not wait to see if they change because the ones I met didn't change. As a potential victim, I won't wait to see if they have my names on their list. If somebody wants France to become the Etat Français, put a Frankish Axe on the monnaie and change for Travail Famille Patrie the Liberté Egalité Fraternité (and rename the police Milice) I know what they up to.
In France all parties have to respect the values of the Republic, the first one being to be a democracy. If you don't respect the French Constitution well, your organisation is illegal. Simple. The respect of others is one of theses values.
1st Constitution (1789) : "Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits" All men born and stay free and equal in right."Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression." The goal of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and (don't know the translation: something like impossible to take from) rights of men. These rights are freedom, property, safety and resistance to oppression. "La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui" Freedom is to be able to do all what doesn't harm others.
See, all is said.:beam:

Of course, some articles were modified (Resistance to oppression was a little bit too revolutionary, for instance):sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

don't know the translation: something like impossible to take from)

---

imprescriptibles = imprescribable

I am really getting tired of these christians on our government, first they don't want to work on sundays in the middle of a crisis no the LORD says no, they try to introduce laws on blasphemy, and now they now they want creatism on public schools. Believe in fairytales fine, but just leave us alone.