Holocaust Denial - Criminal or Human Right?
Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2006 8:05 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/artic ... 22,00.html
The above story is about David Irving, the holocaust denier who is on trial for the crime of the former.
Obviously, the holocaust did happen, millions were murdered and the Nazis were fully responsible. But some people do not see it that way.
Do you think that it should necessarily be a crime to 'deny' that the holocaust actually happened? Especially, as with Irving, if that person claims to base his or her beliefs on evidence?
Personally I dont believe that it should necessarily be a crime. Its best to bring something like that - and other issues such as racism, discrimination - out into the open and invalidate them with political debate rather than simply criminalising it and hoping it will go away.
Obviously the laws serve a purpose - to prevent neo-nazis from obtaining a public forum. But is not that contributing to the problem? Such people base thier beliefs on what they consider to be genuine evidence and refuse to accept contradictory evidence. Surely the emphasis should be on preventing the spread of such beliefs through open debate, rather than by criminalising such a belief.
Obviously racism is different in that it often preaches inferiority and violence. But are not people entitled to such beliefs as long as they do not incite illegitimate violence?
What do you think?
The above story is about David Irving, the holocaust denier who is on trial for the crime of the former.
Obviously, the holocaust did happen, millions were murdered and the Nazis were fully responsible. But some people do not see it that way.
Do you think that it should necessarily be a crime to 'deny' that the holocaust actually happened? Especially, as with Irving, if that person claims to base his or her beliefs on evidence?
Personally I dont believe that it should necessarily be a crime. Its best to bring something like that - and other issues such as racism, discrimination - out into the open and invalidate them with political debate rather than simply criminalising it and hoping it will go away.
Obviously the laws serve a purpose - to prevent neo-nazis from obtaining a public forum. But is not that contributing to the problem? Such people base thier beliefs on what they consider to be genuine evidence and refuse to accept contradictory evidence. Surely the emphasis should be on preventing the spread of such beliefs through open debate, rather than by criminalising such a belief.
Obviously racism is different in that it often preaches inferiority and violence. But are not people entitled to such beliefs as long as they do not incite illegitimate violence?
What do you think?