Holocaust denial to become criminal offense in Canada

[CitizenVectron]

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

WWW.CTVNEWS.CA

---

Holocaust denial is to be outlawed in Canada, in a further effort to stamp out rising antisemitism.

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

"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."

 

Quote

Canada will join a string of European countries, including Germany, Greece, France, Belgium and the Czech Republic, which have already prohibited Holocaust denial.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Good. Wish it were the same here.

[Jason]

Can't wait for the trucker convoy protesting this. 

[mclumber1]

Freedom means people have to be able to be freedumb though.  

[Uaarkson]

yeah…I don’t like this.

 

No form of speech should be criminalized outside of explicit threats. And this may seem very minor, but it’s the very top of a very long, slippery slope.

[Guest]

This is the natural consequence of the really silly idea that speech is violence.

[Kal-El814]

I don’t like it in general. But have there been similar laws on the books in Germany and if so has anyone slid down that slope?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

There actually are limits to speech like this and these are good

[mclumber1]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There actually are limits to speech like this and these are good

Man fined for hate crime after filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'

WWW.BBC.COM

---

Mark Meechan put footage on YouTube of the dog reacting to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.

 

[Kal-El814]

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Man fined for hate crime after filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'

WWW.BBC.COM

---

Mark Meechan put footage on YouTube of the dog reacting to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.

 

 

Who wants to tell the 2A stan what people do with guns?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Man fined for hate crime after filming pug's 'Nazi salutes'

WWW.BBC.COM

---

Mark Meechan put footage on YouTube of the dog reacting to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.

 

Good. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Good. 

Discuss:

 

[CitizenVectron]

57 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

yeah…I don’t like this.

 

No form of speech should be criminalized outside of explicit threats. And this may seem very minor, but it’s the very top of a very long, slippery slope.

 

When do these slippery slopes ever pan out? Like, right-wing reactionaries are going to ban the word "gay"? Oh wait, they already do that without the need for good use of laws. If we're going to be afraid of passing good laws because bad people will use it as an excuse to pass bad laws, then there's no point in having government.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than "slippery slope" arguments.

 

If "free speech" is so damned fragile that this minor limitation causes its entire house of cards to come tumbling down, then perhaps it's not worth even existing in the first place.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1)  This portion of the Budget has received very little media coverage.  If Riley hadn't posted here, I probably wouldn't have noticed it.

2)  Canada already has pretty good Hate Speech laws, I wonder if this specific law is even needed.

41 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than "slippery slope" arguments.

 

If "free speech" is so damned fragile that this minor limitation causes its entire house of cards to come tumbling down, then perhaps it's not worth even existing in the first place.

I really think that almost all Holocaust denial would be caught up in Canada's already existing hate speech laws.

My concern is the precedent in banning specific speech on a specific topic.  I would prefer if it was kept more generic.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

This is the natural consequence of the really silly idea that speech is violence.

Your point about speech not being violence is spot on.

 

However, explicitly racist hate speech is a problem in Canada.  In many cases, holocaust denial leads directly into calls for violence against Jews.  IMHO, I think the problem is more the violence against Jews (and general antisemitism), rather than the holocaust denial itself.

[Keyser_Soze]

4 hours ago, Uaarkson said:

yeah…I don’t like this.

 

No form of speech should be criminalized outside of explicit threats. And this may seem very minor, but it’s the very top of a very long, slippery slope.

 

It will be alright. It's Canada. The fine will probably be a stern talking to by a Canadian. "Sorrey Sir, but that's not right eh. Don't say it again ok?"

[Anathema-]

It's not anti-democratic to pass laws that harm the enemies of democracy. 

[stepee]

This is the sorta thing where I’m not sure if it’s necessary just because there are already hate crime laws, but also don’t care and I’m fine with it. But I feel like I’m going to have to listen to people whine about it which is annoying. But maybe not since it’s Canada. Don’t believe in slippery slopes, they are actually used as brick walls to stall progress.

[AbsolutSurgen]

It got so little play in the Canadian media, that no one is whining about it.

[stepee]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

It got so little play in the Canadian media, that no one is whining about it.

 

Good, now as long as fox news doesn’t run on it we will be spared!

[Kal-El814]

On 4/11/2022 at 6:55 PM, Kal-El814 said:

I don’t like it in general. But have there been similar laws on the books in Germany and if so has anyone slid down that slope?

So I checked this. 
 

Germany’s Laws on Antisemitic Hate Speech and Holocaust Denial

WWW.PBS.ORG

---

A troubled history is alive in Germany — both in a resurgence of far-right ideology and in changes to the laws designed to combat that extremism.

 

Some of these laws date back to the 19th century. The slope in Germany at least doesn’t seem to be especially slippery. 

[stepee]

It sucks because otherwise I love the image that “slippery slope” conjures in my mind.

[Guest]

Performative law making is fine, like the push to make lynching a federal crime. I mean, every aspect of lynching is already illegal, lynching is not a crime that occurs with any regularity, but whatevs making it specifically illegal.

 

Supporting limiting people from expressing ideas you don’t like (such as Holocaust denial) is granting the government the right to decide what ideas are ok and what ideas aren’t. That itself is the issue, not some future case we might not like. It’s easier to not care about that when the particular idea being banned is near universally seen as objectionable.

 

But I see this pop up in situations where people will express opposition to the death penalty, and then say “I don’t mind that THIS person is being killed by the government”. My objection to the state killing people is without respect for what kind of person it is, just as my objection to the government banning the expression of ideas is without respect to what those ideas are.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Supporting limiting people from expressing ideas you don’t like (such as Holocaust denial) is granting the government the right to decide what ideas are ok and what ideas aren’t. 

 

I can all but assure you that the State does that anyway so we might as well take our victories when we can.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I can all but assure you that the State does that anyway so we might as well take our victories when we can.

This is increasingly true in much of the developed world, though not so in the US.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, sblfilms said:

This is increasingly true in much of the developed world, though not so in the US.

 

Hopefully, we'll catch up in time!

[CitizenVectron]

Also I think people take ideological purity too far sometimes. I believe it's perfectly fine to not want government to do some things, but also be okay with them doing those things sometimes. I get that people will respond with "well what if they come for your opinion/action next?" Well then I'll be against it. But certain opinions/actions are almost universally popular, so I'm not that concerned about it.

 

I mean, Canada on paper has fewer personal freedoms than the US, but I would argue has a much more stable culture and society, especially politically. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Also I think people take ideological purity too far sometimes.

 

This is why I roll my eyes whenever the charge of "hypocrisy" is thrown around.

This is the real world: no one gives a rat's ass about hypocrisy, nor should they.  In fact, if a person doesn't practice hypocrisy on some level, then I have to really question their level of intellectual development.  The act of hypocrisy clearly demonstrates a higher level of cognition because it is unconstrained by the "foolish consistency" which is the "hobgoblin of little minds".

 

When someone accuse you of hypocrisy, your response should always be, "Yes, and what of it?"

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

This is the real world: no one gives a rat's ass about hypocrisy

This board is obsessed with hypocrisy, though that could be disingenuous  

 

But  hypocrisy isn’t what I’m describing, I’m talking about the principles from which we operate, e.g. the State should not kill prisoners. If that is a principle, the particular of the prisoner is irrelevant. You aren’t being hypocritical for opposing the death penalty generally while making exceptions in certain cases, you’re just not holding to your principle.

 

From there all sorts of interesting things could be afoot, like intellectual inconsistency. Who knows.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Holocaust denial is to free speech what the capitol riot is to freedom of assembly 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Being concerned with hypocrisy is libertarian shit. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

But  hypocrisy isn’t what I’m describing, I’m talking about the principles from which we operate, e.g. the State should not kill prisoners. If that is a principle, the particular of the prisoner is irrelevant. You aren’t being hypocritical for opposing the death penalty generally while making exceptions in certain cases, you’re just not holding to your principle.

 

I genuinely fail to see a substantive distinction between hypocrisy and not being true to one's principles.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Being concerned with hypocrisy is libertarian shit. 

 

*liberal

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

*liberal

Either way it’s boring shit. 
 

just have correct opinions, like I do, and not worry about your opinion meeting some rigid ideological framework 

[CitizenVectron]

It's better to be concerned about goals than principles.