Playing the Indian Card

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

How "Hate Laws" Promote Hate

A Turkish national has recently been convicted in Switzerland of the crime of denying that there was a deliberate holocaust of Armenians in Turkey in the early twentieth century. Oddly enough, it is a crime in Turkey to say there was such a holocaust.

The argument in both cases is essentially the same. In Switzerland, it is “Hate Speech” against the Armenians to deny this Holocaust. In Turkey, it is “Hate Speech” against the Turks to accept it.

Surely this demonstrates the insanity of “Hate Laws” generally?

It is illegal in Canada to deny that there was a Nazi holocaust against the Jews, or indeed to claim it was less systematic than generally believed. To do so is considered a “hate crime” against Jews. But isn’t it just as arguably a hate crime against Germans, a promotion of the idea of German “blood guilt,” to insist that the holocaust did happen, and was as systematic as generally believed?

After all, it is considered hateful to say that Jews killed Jesus; Jewish anti-defamation groups attacked Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ on this ground even though it was pretty accurately reflecting the Bible on this point. Why is blood guilt for the goose not blood guilt for the gander?

One might argue that the claim that there was a Nazi holocaust is simply true beyond doubt, while the claim that the Jews killed Jesus is simply false. Perhaps so; but how can we be confident of this, once we have silenced all possible debate or contrary findings? And deliberate holocausts do, in fact, tend to be hard to prove. Understandably, the perpetrators rather prefer to cover their tracks.

It seems to me certain that no “Hate Law” is ever going to be used to prosecute anyone saying anything popular. It will only ever be used to prosecute unpopular speech. Therefore, it is never going to prevent hatred against any group that is generally hated; making it, at best, useless.

Indeed, we do not even tend to see speech criticizing unpopular groups as hateful. Jeff Harmsen has written, in this very blog’s comments section, that “millions have been tortured and slaughtered in his [Jesus’s] name.” Of “millions of examples of torture and massacre predicated by religious righteousness.” Does he face two years’ imprisonment for spreading hate? Even though these claims are fairly certainly historically untrue? Surely not. But had he said this of the Jews? Quite a different matter. Similiarly, nobody faces trouble for saying “men are violent by nature.” But should this be said of blacks or aboriginals? Two years in prison. Yet one claim is about as likely to be true as the other; the same evidence that is commonly used to show that men are “violent,” the number of criminal charges and convictions, would equally show that blacks and aboriginals are.

As a result, Hate Laws will do absolutely nothing, ever, to prevent a real holocaust. Instead, they only become another weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to oppress some group. Had there been “Hate Laws” in Nazi Germany, you can be sure they would have been used to prosecute Jews who said anything against Nazis, never to prosecute Nazis who said anything against Jews.

The people who are currently prosecuted seem, invariably, to be at worst harmless eccentrics, at best the best among us, honest men who dissent from social norms and refuse to be silenced. The very sort of men who would have dissented from the Nazi holocaust at the time

6 comments:

Jeff Harmsen said...

I think the solution to your query lies in the humanity of what can be proved. Thus, if we are certain a holocaust occurred, it should be a crime to deny it, because in doing so, people are denying the reality of human suffrage at the hands of madmen. It's a matter of THE truth, vs a biased opinion.

Jeff Harmsen said...

Very sophisticated comment thomas. I can't balme you for believing in trolls since you suffer the god delusion. Steve rewrote my letter to the Post, introjecting his own false arguments behind my back. This is how I entered the debate on this blog.

It's a public domain, can't you handle the truth?

Westview, if you do the work and can prove the 6 million figure is wrong, then you have a right to say so. However, no credible expert has done so to my knowledge, so you'd have your work cut out for you. Moreoever, nobody takes the 6 million as exact, but as an estimation.

Steve Roney said...

Jeff, that is pure paranoid fantasy. I never "rewrote your letter to the Post," and I have done nothing "behind your back." My God, get a life!

Jeff Harmsen said...

Steve, you're suffering from amnesia. How do you think I found your blog? You referred to me as the "The Village Atheist" and rewrote my letter from the Post verbatim, but chopped up, inserting your own views. Remember? I pointed out your courage in doing this behind my back. Little did you know I would find your blog and debate you under the table!

Another issue: I'm interested to see how you handle thomas's comment. If it was my blog, I would not tollerate name calling, such as "fucking troll." On the other hand, you might see him as speaking for God, so his rudeness is actually righteous in your eyes, the same way you see God's sadism as a good thing.

Steve Roney said...

Jeff, if I barred name-calling here, you would be long gone.

I never "rewrote" your letter to the Post: I reprinted portions of it, which is standard procedure in a review. And, as I did not know you from Adam, I could not have been doing it "behind your back."

As to your solution to the problem of “hate speech”: there is a contradiction here. You say so long as we are certain of the truth, “Hate speech” that contradicts it should be illegal. But who gets to judge what is certainly true? Necessarily, in this case, the government. Just that system has led, as pointed out, to the anomaly that denying the Armenian holocaust is illegal in Switzerland, while admitting it is illegal in Turkey.

In a democracy, of course, the government is chosen by majority vote. You yourself have claimed that the majority of people are brainwashed so completely that what they believe to be the most certain truth is false. How is this going to work?

Jeff Harmsen said...

I have never called anyone a name. I have been acerbic regarding certain statements, but I have never call anyone a name like "fucking troll."

But don't worry, since tomas is on your side, I understand your bias.

So you admit you rewrote the majority of my letter verbatim. Thank-you. I though you were going to deny reality and that would be so against your character!

Good point about the masses and brainwashing. A democracy is only as strong as the enlightenment of its people. Thus,when the masses evolve beyond the delusions of religion and embrace their own humanity, we will experience unprecedented peace and discovery.

Someone busy with politicking in the government is not likely a historical expert. Thus, logically, if we want the best take on history, the final say should go to a non biased historian with the highest acclaim, (or a group of historians). Norman Cantor would get my vote here in Canada.

Indeed, his book "Antiquity" should be required reading in high school because he gives the facts in an unbiased manner.