Freedom Of Speech And Holocaust Denial

[Nathan]

I just heard that the infamous Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was sentenced today in a German court to five years in prison, the maxumum sentence for the official charge of "Holocaust denial" in Germany. It brings to mind the British author, Irving, who was recently imprisoned in Austria for denying the Holocaust in one of his books. (I suppose it is relevant to define "Holocaust denial" in these contexts. As far as I know both Zundel and Irving do not deny outright that horrible atrocities happened at the hands of the Nazis; what they deny is that [i]six million Jews[/i] were put to death.)

In any case, is this right? Should people be thrown in prison for denying the Holocaust, or denying certain commonly-cited facts about the Holocaust?

This seems to me to be a serious ethical issue, and the reason is that the West as a society holds freedom of speech dearly. Freedom of speech is a valued right just about everywhere. Do laws of "hate speech" -- defined by different people to be different things, from neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust in some circles to a Catholic bishop preaching that homosexuality is disordered in others -- limit freedom of speech? Is it a good thing? And what about the problem of time? How can we charge people with the crime of hate speech over the Holocaust and ignore people who deny, for instance, the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks? A million other examples would suffice.

A can of worms indeed. What do you think?

[hoosieranna]

I think this might be an issue that has to be examined in context with the place. I'm not a theologian, lawyer, or even particularly cogent writer. This is just a thought.

Germany has some of the strongest anti-Nazi laws. The government is likely trying to prevent another scenario like the one in which Hitler rose to power. Anything action, word, person, whatever, that portrays Nazism in a positive light could be seen as the first step toward that kind of situation.

Austria probably feels similarly. Hitler was Austrian. If he'd just gotten into art school, who knows how much needless tragedy could have been avoided. Let me stress that this is just the opinion of a geography grad student who is fairly well-informed, but has blind spots like anyone else. I'm not stating this as fact.

I'm a Yank. I believe in total freedom of speech. I might absolutely disagree and abhor what another person says, but that doesn't give me the right to stop them. It gives me an even better privilege: I can ignore them, or shout my own predjudices right back. Using common sense when stating ideas that controversial or just plain wrong is always recommended. It doesn't mean that common sense will always occur.

All this coalesces into a final opinion. Hate speech laws are very restrictive. It might be better to just have a general hate crime law that could be tailored to specific cases. The authors may feel the need to say that six million Jews, and perhaps another 4 million Gypsies, gays, and Poles were not killed. This doesn't even include soldier deaths (millions of Russians for example). I say they're dead wrong. We're both exercising a right to free speech. Just a thought.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Nadezhda

[cmotherofpirl]

I think it is wrong and counterproductive to have or enforce such laws. Opinions should not be illegal and subject to jail time. How can we say we have freedom of speech to criticize Muslims, but they can't criticize the history of the holocaust?
If you restrict any speech, all speech is affected in the end.
Look at how Canadians are persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.

[catholicinsd]

Holocaust denial is sorta like marrying a cousin, its wrong but making it illegal may be hard.

[Resurrexi]

Freedom of speech should not exist because it is evil and against the teachings of our Holy Mother the Church. The following was condemned as an error in the Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Bl. Pius IX.

[quote name='The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Bl. Pius IX']79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.[/quote]
[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm[/url]

There should be laws in Catholic countries (which all countries should be) against evil speech such as: promoting or spreading heresy or opinions against Catholic teaching or morals, blasphemy, disrespectful use of the Name of God or the names of the Saints, speaking loudly or irreverently in a Catholic church, speech promoting disobedience or revolt against legitimate authority, unjustly angry speech, speech aimed at trying to murder someone, impure speech, speech promoting theft, calumny, detraction, adulation, and all lying.

"Holocaust denying", that is, denying the historicity of the claim that six million Talmudic Jews (as opposed to Old Testament Jews) were murdered by order of Adolf Hitler, is in no way immoral. It does not deny or doubt any of Dogmata or Doctrine of the Church nor does it sin against any of the Natural Law, Divine Law or Church Law. Therefore, any man may believe anything he wants to about the claim that six million Talmudic Jews (as opposed to Old Testament Jews) were murdered by order of Adolf Hitler. The only thing a man must believe about that time period would be historicity of the Pope and Catholic bishops during the AD 1940s and historicity and validity of the documents and pronouncements issued by him alone or with them.

Edited February 16, 2007 by StThomasMore

[cmotherofpirl]

Pope lists 4 great challenges for mankind

Vatican, Jan. 10, 2005 (CWNews.com) - In his annual address to the Vatican diplomatic corps on January 10, Pope John Paul II (bio - news) set out four challenges facing the world's leaders: the defense of life, the conquest of hunger, the pursuit of world peace, and the advance of religious freedom.

Each year, as he exchanges his New Year's greetings with the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, the Pope traditionally provides an overview of the Vatican's leading concerns regarding international affairs. This year, once again, John Paul II offered the 174 members of the diplomatic corps a thorough rundown of world affairs. (The full text of the papal address is available on the Vatican web site.)

In what may have been a reference to the election of Mahmound Abbas as the new president of the Palestinian Authority, the Pontiff observed that in the Middle East "armed confrontation appears to be decreasing, with the hope of a political breakthrough in the direction of dialogue and negotiation." But he balanced that optimistic assessment with his denunciation of the "acts of barbaric terrorism" that the world has seen in Iraq, Madrid, and Beslan in the past year, and the "inhuman acts of violence" and "atrocities" that continue in the Darfur province of Sudan and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

John Paul II began his address by welcoming the diplomats, and saying that through their presence at the Vatican, the ambassadors of the world's countries "in a certain way make visible the great family of the nations." He offered a special nod to the dean of the Vatican diplomatic corps, Giovanni Galassi of San Marino, who had spoken on behalf of the assembled envoys in wishing the Pope a happy new year.

While returning those best wishes, the Pope reflected that the year 2004 had ended with great sadness because of the devastation caused by the tsunami in southeast Asia. He said that the Church, in the face of this tragedy, recalls the message of hope made visible in Bethlehem with the birth of Christ, and the assurance that God never leaves man alone in his suffering. He said that the Church always works to ease suffering and promote human dignity, and went on to explain the purpose of Vatican diplomacy: "The Catholic Church, because of her universal nature, is always directly engaged in the great causes for which the men and women of our age struggle and hope."

The Holy Father then listed the four great challenges that face mankind. First he spoke of the threats against the dignity of human life, which have "grown in scale and urgency in recent years." The most severe challenge occur at the beginning of human life, he said, referring to "abortion, assisted procreation, the use of human embryonic stem cells for scientific research, and cloning." But he also pointed to the threats against "the very sanctuary of life: the family." He argued that the family, based on marriage, "must never be undermined by laws based on a narrow and unnatural vision of man."

Next the Pope spoke about world hunger, observing that although the world provides more than enough food to feed all its inhabitants, "hundred of millions of human beings are suffering from grave malnutrition, and each year millions of children die of hunger or its effects." He urgently called for new and inventive approaches to providing adequate and stable sources of nutrition for the hungry. The obligation to feed the poor falls upon everyone, the Pope said. He concluded: "While this principle cannot be used to justify collectivist forms of economic policy, it should serve to advance a radical commitment to justice and a more attentive and determined display of solidarity."

The "encouraging signs" that the Pope saw regarding the pursuit of peace were not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. John Paul also praised the African Union for its efforts to end civil wars there. And he added: "Certainly an outstanding example of the possibility of peace can be seen in Europe: nations which were once fierce enemies locked in deadly wars are now members of the European Union."

Finally the Pope spoke of religious liberty, "a right which is not yet sufficiently or adequately recognized." He insisted that government can allow their people the full freedom to practice their faiths, without fearing that religious groups would interfere with secular government. "Neither should there be a fear that religious freedom, once granted to the Catholic Church, would intrude upon the realm of political freedom and the competencies proper to the state," the Pope said; "the Church is able carefully to distinguish, as she must, what belongs to Caesar from what belongs to God."

Because the advanced symptoms of Parkinson's disease make it difficult for Pope John Paul to speak clearly, he did not read the entirety of his address. The bulk of the prepared text, which was written and delivered in French, was read by Msgr. Francois Duthel, an official of the Secretariat of State. However, after the formal speech, the Pope did remain in the Regia Hall, to greet several of the senior diplomats and their wives individually.

The Vatican diplomatic corps now includes accredited ambassadors from 174 different nations, as well as special representatives from the Palestinian Authority, the Russian Federation, the Europan Community, and the Order of Malta.

Representing all those envoys, Ambassador Galassi of San Marino opening the day's meeting by thanking Pope John Paul for his "indispensable" leadership in "these times full of difficulties and contradictions." The senior diplomat observed that the third millennium has thus far brought "an interminable series of tragedies," including terrorism, war, and natural disasters. At the same time, the ambassador observed the "profound transformations" on the world's political scene, particularly in the European Union, India and China, and the African continent.

Borrowing the language made popular by John Paul II, the dean of the Vatican diplomatic corps closed his remarks by saying that world leaders should serve the human family in building a "civilization of love."

01/10/2005



Canadian clergy warn Senate against passage of homosexual hate crime bill

Ottawa, Sep. 24, 2003 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - At a press conference on Tuesday Canadian Evangelical, Catholic, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and Orthodox clergy announced their objections to the passage in the House of Commons of Bill C-250, which would include homosexuals among groups protected from "hate speech." The Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, executive director of the ECP Centre, spoke for the group saying, "Private member's Bill C-250 is pernicious legislation. Its passage in the House of Commons was assisted by the Government's furtive support."

The group asked the Senate not to rubber stamp the legislation but to consider carefully its dangers. "As Canadian pastors we find this objectionable. We call upon the Senate of Canada to exercise sober second thought on this ill-conceived Bill. We believe that homosexual persons as equal Canadians are already protected in law by the Criminal Code. Bill C-250 is not about the protection of homosexual persons at all, but rather is a direct assault on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression in Canada. Bill C-250 seeks to criminalize debate and speech, writing and text, and any expressed opinion about the moral dimensions of human sexuality," said Emmanuel.

"As clergy and as Canadians, we are concerned that Bill C-250 while in the House of Commons did not receive adequate study and consideration. We are asking the Senate and the Senators to give this Bill, this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code, the study and consideration that it properly deserves and did not receive in the House of Commons. Moreover, we are calling upon pastors, ministers and clergymen across Canada to address the Senate on behalf of their congregations and faith communities."

09/24/2003

[Maggyie]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1196709' date='Feb 15 2007, 11:48 PM']
"Holocaust denying", that is, denying the historicity of the claim that six million Talmudic Jews (as opposed to Old Testament Jews) were murdered by order of Adolf Hitler, is in no way immoral.
[/quote]

What's the difference between Old Testament Jews and Talmudic Jews? Aren't they all descendants of Abraham?

[cmotherofpirl]

Human rights complaint filed against Canadian bishop

Calgary, Alberta, Mar. 31, 2005 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - A supporter of same-sex marriage is using the human rights process in Canada to take away Bishop Frederick Henry's right to freedom of religion and free speech, supporters of the bishop said on Wednesday. They said proponents of same-sex marriage want to use intimidation to silence the Catholic Church on the issue.

Bishop Frederick Henry wrote a letter to the Catholics in his Calgary diocese in January outlining the Church's opposition to same-sex marriages. Bishop Henry called on Catholics to talk to their political representatives and express their opposition to legislation to change the definition of marriage to allow persons of the same sex to marry. A complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission alleges that Bishop Henry's letter discriminates against homosexuals.

Bishop Henry filed a response to the complaint on March 29 saying in part: "My rights to freedom of religion and free speech have been violated. Those that support same-sex marriage want to shut the churches out of this important debate. Those who favor same-sex marriage have been given full opportunity to state their views on this issue. But now they are saying that anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is discriminating against homosexuals."

Bishop Henry points out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are important rights too. They are fundamental to Canadian democracy. Bishop Henry said he feels compelled to stand up for these fundamental rights on behalf of all religions in Canada.

In comments to LifeSiteNews.com, Bishop Henry noted, "If the Human Rights complaint is successful, it will prevent me from expressing my views and the position of the Roman Catholic Church. It prevents me and other Church leaders from speaking out freely in opposition to same-sex marriage. It also prevents me from outlining the position of the Roman Catholic Church to those who attend church in my diocese."

Marie Riddle, the director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, told LifeSiteNews.com that the complaint could not be discussed publicly since it has not reached the panel stage. She noted that complaints are usually handled by conciliation or mediation by commission staff. If unsuccessful, the commission proceeds to an investigation. If the commission does not believe there is a contravention of the Human Rights code the complaint is dismissed. If mediation has not been successful and the commission believes there has been a contravention the matter is sent before a panel for adjudication.

03/31/2005

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1196717' date='Feb 15 2007, 10:01 PM']
What's the difference between Old Testament Jews and Talmudic Jews? Aren't they all descendants of Abraham?
[/quote]

Firstly: Descendants of Abraham? Why does it matter now. Before the Incarnation and Redemption it mattered, but now there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile. There is no chosen special race anymore, and there hasn't been a chosen race since the Good Friday AD 33. There is however, a chosen People: the Holy Catholic Church.

[quote name='Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: Galatians Ch. 3; Vs. 28']28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.[/quote]

[quote name='The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X']18 Q. Why is the Church called Catholic?
A. The true Church is called Catholic, or Universal, because she embraces the faithful of all times, of all places, of all ages and conditions; and all peoples are called to belong to her.[/quote]

[quote name='Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: 1 Peter Ch. 2; Vs. 9-10']9 But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy.[/quote]

The Jewish People, before the New Covenant, were the People of God, but now, anyone who is baptised and believes in the Dogmata and Doctrine the Catholic Church becomes a member of the People of God. Any man of any race can belong to the People of God now.

[quote name='Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: Deuteronomy Ch. 7; Vs. 6-8']6 Because thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be his peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth. 7 Not because you surpass all nations in number, is the Lord joined unto you, and hath chosen you, for you are the fewest of any people: 8 But because the Lord hath loved you, and hath kept his oath, which he swore to your fathers: and hath brought you out with a strong hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharao the king of Egypt.[/quote]

[Maggyie]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1196745' date='Feb 16 2007, 12:40 AM']
Firstly: Descendants of Abraham? Why does it matter now. Before the Incarnation and Redemption it mattered, but now there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile. There is no chosen special race anymore, and there hasn't been a chosen race since the Good Friday AD 33. There is however, a chosen People: the Holy Catholic Church.
The Jewish People, before the New Covenant, were the People of God, but now, anyone who is baptised and believes in the Dogmata and Doctrine the Catholic Church becomes a member of the People of God. Any man of any race can belong to the People of God now.
[/quote]

Yes - the New Covenant is now in effect. But just because the Gentiles are now "chosen" does that necessarily mean that the Jews are now "unchosen"? Surely God doesn't "de-select" people?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1196759' date='Feb 15 2007, 11:18 PM']
Yes - the New Covenant is now in effect. But just because the Gentiles are now "chosen" does that necessarily mean that the Jews are now "unchosen"? Surely God doesn't "de-select" people?
[/quote]

The Jews can be chosen if they want to be chosen. All they have to do is be Catholic.

[KnightofChrist]

Hasnt this been debated before? I remember writing about it here...

[Maggyie]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1196769' date='Feb 16 2007, 01:39 AM']
Hasnt this been debated before? I remember writing about it here...
[/quote]


Probably has.

Anyway, on topic: Holocaust denial is not a pretty thing, but it's not ethical to throw people in prison simply for expressing beliefs. There are limits to speech, of course - I think if the situation involved NeoNazis whipping up violence against Jews, there would be a better case.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1196770' date='Feb 15 2007, 11:42 PM']
Probably has.

Anyway, on topic: Holocaust denial is not a pretty thing, but it's not ethical to throw people in prison simply for expressing beliefs. There are limits to speech, of course - I think if the situation involved NeoNazis whipping up violence against Jews, there would be a better case.
[/quote]

"Holocaust denial" is neither a pretty nor ugly thing... it is morally neutral unless spurred by hatred for the Jewish race (Distinct from the Talmudic religion), in which case it would be evil.

Edited February 16, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

It is a touchy subject. Jews don't like it (obviously) because many of their people were killed in it. But to simply question the number killed, or the manner in which they were killed is not wrong. For one how accurate could the records be, and were does the number 6,000,000 come from? i have heard so many different numbers that i have no idea which is right, they could all be wrong. It is simple arguing over historical facts.


then there are those who say the jews made the whole mess up. I see this as wrong, but im not sure it should be illegal.


P.S i just got back from the holocaust museum in D.C.

there were a lot of misconceptions there about christian "anti-semetism"

but the whole place is creepy

Edited February 16, 2007 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus