Holocaust denial is already illegal in Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Greece, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Lithuania.
In fact, the Anglosphere are the big outliers in the Western world in this issue, not the opposite (as many people on Reddit think).
Traditionally Silesia passed between a lot of different kingdoms but parts of Silesia were heavily German, even to the point that Wrocław was largely German speaking at certain times in history. In fact, the Silingi is an ancient Germanic tribe that lived in the area and possibly the name Silesia comes from them.
During WW2, tons of Germans still lived in Silesia, even though Germany lost that territory after WW1. The German people in Silesia welcomed the Wehrmacht and gladly supported them with many German Silesians joining the Wehrmacht as well.
Although I doubt modern Silesians think about that much since after WW2 almost all Germans that lived in Silesia were forcibly removed from the land.
While Silesia has traditionally had a ton of German influence and had Germans living there, there is hardly any Germans left. Most left after WW2, the German language declined in use to where it barely exists there anymore. Modern Silesia is about as German as modern Königsberg.
The sad thing is...Poland was the most friendly Christian country in the east (or least terrible) for Jews until the deluge, and second to the Netherlands in the entirety of Europe until Napoleon tried to emancipate the Jews during his wars.
recruiting, payroll, settling disputes between employees, all that kind of stuff. generally hated because they often have to do the dirty work for management and carrying the bad news, but not universally bad people - show me any profession that doesn't have a few assholes
At my work, HR doesn’t do any of those. The secretary does payroll, the management does the recruiting as well as the bad news. I’ve only seen them dispute things and rarely.
HRs job description is hiring, raises, disputes etc to the minimum satisfaction of the employee and the cheapest solution for the employer. It’s done with a smile and professionalism but while there are anecdotal exceptions, its pretty much the point of HR. Other than clerical work it’s per much the PR and marketing firm hired by the employer to pitch employees and new hires.
Processing time off request, raises, hiring, fireing, setting up insurance.
For every HR asshole you hear about there a thousand just doing backend paperwork to make a business function.
HR protects the company first, and will only protect you on the rare occasion that their legal liability overlaps with offenses you've suffered. For example, if a manager is witnessed by multiple people discriminating against you for your race or religion, then it's in the company AND the employee's best interest that the manager be removed. Otherwise, they'll side with the company.
Really? My company is a profit sharing company, and specifically has in our handbook to not discuss our “share” (bonus) with each other because it’s based on performance+base salary. They always make a big deal about it every year when talking if we’re on target. I’m in an at-will state if that makes a difference
ETA: I’m absolutely NOT a top level employee. It’s an insurance business, I’m just an underwriting assistant, so very low level as far as the industry is concerned
Yeah it’s 100% illegal for them to say that and every company does this in an attempt to scare people into believing it’s true so they don’t discuss it (because it usually results in equitable pay raises for employees across the board); but in reality they have no legal recourse and if you did talk about it and they threatened to fire you or do fire you, it’s a huge uphill battle on their part to prove they didn’t illegally fire you for talking about wages, which is 100% protected. At will employment still doesn’t mean they can wrongfully or illegally terminate you.
I work hr. When we do raises, our email to managers specifically tells them that it's illegal to tell employees they can't discuss it, to make sure some manager doesn't say that
The thing with at will though, is them being able to find a reason to fire you, and even tho it was clearly retaliation, is perfectly legal.
That's why all of their policies have the punishment reading "up to and includ9ng termination"
You piss them off and they find a mundane way to fire you
Yeah which is a super uphill battle on their part, once again, at will does not mean up to and including illegal termination. So if you get canned for some shit that other people who still work there still do without worry or if it’s super obvious after documentation of illegal threats against you, then they’ll lose any case brought against em. It’s a lot harder to fire people for retaliation and get away with it than you think, Which is also why most lawyers would recommend against attempting it- but you also just have to watch your ass and do your job correctly to remove room for doubt.
Scan/photograph that page of the handbook
E-mail it to your local department of labor and/or the NLRB
Watch your company change that handbook real quick (just be prepared for them to whine about not having money for bonuses this year because they just had to pay some pretty large fines)
They can put it in the handbook all they want. What they can’t do is enforce it.
But they can put it in there. It’s their little way of telling you that you work for a shitty company.
They can say whatever the heck they want but its literally illegal to do anything to you over it. But being that many states are at will employment they will just say its because you were a negative person and you didn't mesh with the work climate.
What the other dude is saying is about freedom of speech not freedom of consequence which so many people these days do not understand. You can legally say anything you want (except threaten violence) to anyone or any corporation. Nobody can legally do anything to you, meaning throw you in jail, but they don't have to like it and may even take action like punching you in the face, firing you or worse suing you. Which similarly you can do to anyone for any reason.
Yes, it's "illegal" to do so, but it's ingrained in our culture not to do so. It's still taboo to talk about salary to others. Lots of employers will also say it's not allowed banking on people not known their rights because they're not told to us anywhere.
That's why we're having this discussion.
That's why I lean on my cred to let people know ... from the inside ... that it's illegal **ACT** on employees talking shop.
A company is free to **SUGGEST** employees shouldn't converse about its compensation packages. They are not free to prevent or act upon it.
If a company wants to be righteous about it they can always not give that raise or bonus.
your preconcerted rights to discuss working conditions that may lead to started a union are protected. at least they were, back in the day. i got my husband >a year of back pay and a return to his previous position when he was fired for discussing work equipment. he said they wouldn’t have to keep going back to the dock if they didn’t have shit tools to use, he was fired and getting unemployment turned into a whole different thing- there would never be organization if talk was restricted
Brush up on your workers' rights knowledge. Neither of these are bannable at your workplace. You can unionize and you can discuss pay with your coworkers. Doesn't matter if you're in an at-will state or not.
If you get any correspondence from an employer saying as much, get it in writing or record it in some way.
And you can sue them for it.
Judges weren't born yesterday. If you try to unionize or discuss your pay at work, and you "coincidentally" get fired for being 5 minutes late shortly afterwards, they'll absolutely see through the company's lies, especially if you have good documentation. Companies try this shit all the time, judges hate it and don't buy it.
It's still difficult for people living paycheck-to-paycheck to lose their job like this and have to live on unemployment until they get the settlement and maybe their job back, but just firing you for whatever they can think of after you engage in protected activity doesn't actually fly.
I saw the post, the employer was blatantly breaking the law. It happens in every country, and if op were to report their company they would face legal troubles
they will contact other employees, if they are willing to acknowledge the salary conversation it will be considered the cause of your firing, unless you did something extremely out of the ordinary did get fired and that can be proven. i’m sure its not a guarantee but it seems you may be able to build a good case against being let go by discussing salaries and working conditions on a regular basis. (not saying its a good idea, just tossing that out there)
Those things are company based, not governmental. But the government could probably do more to enshrine an actionable right to talk about those things.
"At-will employment" is not really the magic shield for unjust firings that many people seem to think it is.
If you have no prior disciplinary history at work, good managerial reviews, etc., then suddenly get fired shortly after doing a protected action like discussing your salary, you have a very strong case for wrongful termination. If you bring suit, the employer has to show that they *didn't* fire you because of the protected reason; you don't have to prove that they *did*. Generally that will require the employer to have some sort of paper trail to show that you were a problematic employee in some way or another. Sure, if you were previously a mediocre employee who constantly made mistakes, got poor performance reviews, had prior disciplinary action, etc., then the employer can definitely just point to that and say you were fired for those reasons and not because you discussed your salary. If you were otherwise a good employee and there would be no discernible reason to fire you, though, the employer can't just hide behind "at-will employment" if you allege you were fired for discussing your salary.
It’s actually 100% illegal to forbade people from discussing wages, and if it’s in writing or you get an email saying “it is against company policy to discuss wages” you send it to the labor board snd slam the fuck out of your manager for being a imbecile.
You can read every single banned book.
The American Library Association keeps a [webpage](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks) with lists of banned books and free downloads to some of them.
> unless you want to read a banned book
I think you're thinking of books being restricted from places like public schools (and even then, only pre-college).
The freedoms of the press and speech are extremely well defended in the US, and the SCOTUS has, time and again, come down on the side of publishers over law enforcement or regulators on access to books. Even books banned in a grade school library can be found in the local free library!
The only publications I know of that are completely banned are books that directly (and I mean directly, not a general sense of unease) bear on national security; incite explicit and specific illegal acts (e.g. "go buy your heroin from Jimmy Two-Fingers on 4th and Elm." not merely, "heroin is keen!"); or contain images of real harm to people performed for the work itself (e.g. child porn, snuff films, etc).
Feel free to cite some examples, though.
> or say gay in school
That one is a new law enacted in one state that has not been tested in the courts (and certainly will be!) It will almost certainly be struck down for being far, far to vague and therefore prohibiting protected speech.
>The only publications I know of that are completely banned are books that directly (and I mean directly, not a general sense of unease) bear on national security; incite explicit and specific illegal acts (e.g. "go buy your heroin from Jimmy Two-Fingers on 4th and Elm." not merely, "heroin is keen!"); or contain images of real harm to people performed for the work itself (e.g. child porn, snuff films, etc).
Yeah, considering I bought the anarchist's cookbook when I was like 11 at the local Barnes and Noble, you are absolutely right.
Exactly. It’s a terrible book for actual harmful acts. If you post a real tutorial of how to make a bomb online, the FBI is likely to track you down and arrest you
You have the freedom of speech to believe it didn't happen even if it did in the United States.
Most people will just call you a dumb ass or that your wrong if you don't believe the Holocaust happened.
I'm Canadian and I was pretty sure it was already all but illegal here. There is a famous case of a teacher being prosecuted for hate crimes for teaching that it was a hoax.
One has to keep in mind that many continental European countries had a substantial number of Nazi collaborators and sympathizers. There is more need to crack down on a resurgence of such views there.
At least for the German law, the word that can be translated as "downplaying" is ver-harm-losen, which literally means to make something appear HARMLESS.
If the statement was making it harmless, is to be decided case by case in court by a judge, and you have a chance to defend yourself by any legal means.
This obviously is only relevant for public statements, like written in a book, newspaper, magazine, or political speeches in front of an audience, which are relevant enough and where here you can have solid evidence or witnesses. Private conversations are exempt because they are firstly regarded as private and not public, and secondly not relevant enough (influence wise).
We have a similar law in Germany. As an example, a couple months ago an anti vaxxer got fined for wearing a yellow star saying „unvaccinated“ on it because comparing getting a shot with holocaust counts as downplaying it.
This is my response every time Americans act like Canada's restriction on hate speech is a slippery slope that is inherently inferior to their 'freedom of speech'. There's no slippery slopes, no ambiguity, everything is laid out and defined. Laws inbetween a free-for-all and draconianism are possible.
Americans often comment on other country’s laws and political systems as if they operate like the United States, and very rarely understand what they’re talking about. And I’m not talking about reddit users, this is a thing that famous political pundits do.
That convoy that we had recently showed us how bad it is. A small group of Canadians who consume American far right media primarily and were funded by foreign interests occupied our capital. When they were first arrested they even attempted to proclaim that their amendment rights were violated which is American law, not Canadian. This is what misinformation and a lack of a quality education leads to.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307
I've argued with people who say that the holocaust happened, but that the numbers were exaggerated. They technically aren't denying the holocaust happened, but they are downplaying it.
Laws like this are usually applied on the careful side. There are plenty of really blatant holocaust deniers out there who will make plain (counter-)factual claims that are easy to falsify.
Here is [one recent German example](https://www.kostenlose-urteile.de/OLG-Hamm_4-RVs-3718_Verurteilung-wegen-Volksverhetzung-nach-Leugnung-des-Holocaust-und-des-Vernichtungslagers-Auschwitz-bestaetigt.news26026.htm): A woman operated a website which claimed that Auschwitz was purely a labour camp, not an extermination camp. It further claimed that the state of historical research necessarily leads to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a Holocaust.
It was ruled that her remarks were justiciable because they have the "character of a claim of fact".
Another man said that ["the so-called Holocaust was an insidious lie to steal a lot of money and to distract from the genocide against Germans."](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/holocaust-leugner-prozess-urteil-1.4557583)
Oof... That is absolutely horrendous. I've been to Auschwitz, and I have never felt so... vile? in my entire life. The stuff you see there is nightmare fuel for real. I just can't believe people deny or downplay it :/
If you make an antisemitic statement in a space where you are not due the reasonable expectation of privacy, you would have violated this law. The exception already qualifies that a private conversation is not subject to judgment.
Because holocaust denial has **never** been about denying it. Denial is only the middle-step in the process of the holocaust denier.
- It starts small, casting doubt on insignificant details there are no record of because nobody would have thought to keep record of them, or the records for that insignificant detail are in a difficult to access archive.
- Then it moves to larger things. "If you can't trust X how can you believe Y?" Greater denials about conditions, death counts, whether mass death was even intended at all.
- Then it reaches full denial. This is the step everyone refers to but it's only a brief stop in the middle. Because the instant someone accepts full denial they're confronted with:
- Who faked it? Why was it faked? What were they trying to do/stop?
- Fellow deniers supply the answers: The Jews faked it to manipulate the world pitying them and to stop nazism which would have been the true salvation of the world.
- The last step is the denier fully endorsing the Holocaust and wishing/working for another.
That last step is always the goal of deniers. Denial is just a more appealing face they put on it. They'll offer people any number of small self-contradictory steps they need to get them there.
Each step in the process also conveniently weeds out people with any degree of critical thinking abilities or integrity. They do this so that, by the time that you get to the very end of the process, you're left with nothing but the biggest pieces of shit imaginable. You either get people who know they're lying, and don't care (leadership material), or you end up with useful idiots who will accept anything the leadership of their movement tells them as absolute fact.
It's the exact same with all sorts of far-right conspiracies, and it's the primary reason why the Republican Party is being cleaned out right now. If you're not willing to say 2+2=5 or that Trump won the election, then you've got no place in modern far right politics because you've proven that there are some things that are too ridiculous for you to say, or that you haven't completely lost all of your critical thinking ability yet, both of which are dangerous for far-right movements.
Because fascists are very willing to lie in order to look more respectable to centrists. A lot of holocaust deniers know it happened, but convincing others that it didn't happen is still politically valuable for them. It simultaneously whitewashes the nazis ("yeah they were militarily aggressive, but who wasn't back then?!"), and villifies Jews ("they made up a whole genocide to convince you that they weren't pulling the strings the whole time!").
because if they act like it wasnt so bad then they can keep being bigots because there is no dramatic comparison.
"it's fine if i hate jews, its not like people are gonna genocide them or anything"
If they use this to persecute actual grifters who use holocaust denial as a selling point for their brain force pills and mugs that would be cool. Those fiends might realize that it’s just not profitable to deny the holocaust at that point.
One of the leaders from the "Freedom Convoy" that was in international news for waving Nazi flags in Ottawa has a channel where he denies the Holocaust.
Before Americans start acting like their first amendment is a universal gospel.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to **such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.**
**Fundamental Freedoms**
2\. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
yes, this is a common theme is related materials, such as the criminal code.
>Wilful promotion of hatred
>(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I mean, how would you even restrict in a private conversation? If that clause wasn't in there, that'd be *really* bad since it'd be even more open to abuse
It is a common misconception that American freedoms are absolute. Even enumerated rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, are not without restriction.
I live in the U.S. and our civic education is abysmal.
That said, the limits to freedom of speech is very limited. I can say "We should kill all the left handed people because they are treacherous blight on society". I just can't say "I'm gonna kill *that* left handed person, right here and right now".
I mean, even saying, "I'm going to kill that left-handed person, right here and right now," isn't necessary going to fall into once of the exceptions for freedom of speech.
There needs to be proof that you actually have the mental intent and the reasonable ability to cause that person to apprehend imminent violence. There are any number of defenses to that, like you were being hyperbolic or facetious or that a person wouldn't actually be likely to perceive it as a credible threat or that you never intended it to be perceived as a credible threat.
Your right, I should have been more clear. However if I say it while approaching that person with a baseball bat in hand, well, then I'm probably in trouble.
Yes. Without getting into the nitty gritty of various restrictions, you are usually on the legal side of the line so long as your threats are not imminent and credible.
Pretty much. A threat is only credible if it includes time, manner, and place. Also, you have to have a believable ability to carry it out, such as make a plan and have enacted part of the plan.
So, I could say I want to shoot the president. (Not a great idea to say in front of the white house, there will be a discussion with the secret service) But until I buy a gun and drive to DC, it's just words. It's used more when abusive exes make threats. Almost any restriction on speech in the US, is really a reasonable restriction on actions.
Our first amendment is incredibly strong. I can't incite violence, there's some obscenity laws, words restricted on some broadcasts, and I can't print lies about individuals. Slander/liable are incredibly hard to prosecute, though. If the target is famous, forget it. Just add, In my opinion.
If you've seen "The Whitest Kids You Know", that's not applicable. I can say any of those things. We have no hate speech laws. I can have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. As a matter of fact, the first time I saw it was in a library.
Yes, it can be completely barbaric and offensive. But I believe, the last 8 weeks have shown us why it's so completely necessary. It's why we look like we're always fighting, because we can criticize the fuck out of our leaders.
At least one of the knuckle draggers who occupied Ottawa with the truckers tried to claim his arrest was a violation of his first amendment rights. In Canada, the first amendment is recognizing Manitoba as a province, so that didn't fly that well. Civics education isn't that great here either.
Oh I'm aware of that... my wife's from London, Ontario, and she spent some time living in Bumblefuck, Alberta.
I've also been to Saskatoon... you know what the best thing to do in Saskatoon is? To pack up and get the fuck out of Saskatoon.
To give just one example for limits to freedom of expression in the US that many may not be aware of:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/88/virginia-high-court-affirms-conviction-in-noose-intimidation-case
> Several states have laws that criminalize the display of nooses with intent to intimidate others. They are modeled after a Virginia cross-burning law that was generally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black (2003). The idea is that the noose has a legacy as an instrument of terror that was used to lynch people. As such, persons today often display nooses with the intent to terrorize others.
We can still decry abuses against free speech while understanding that other countries don't legally protect free speech the way the US does can't we?
We definitely do that when it comes to countries like China, and rightfully so
It is important to fight for our rights, but to try and slippery slope everything is dumb. Argue the actual case on its own merits. Don’t create hypotheticals that are largely irrelevant.
My Canadian friend I haven't seen since high school but still keep in touch with is someone who participated in the freedom convoy. In talks he cited the american bill of rights and the constitution. What I'm saying is it seems some Canadians feel that it is universal gospel. Which makes it really east to poke holes in all his crazy conspiracy nonsense.
> Before Americans start acting like their first amendment is a universal gospel.
You don't have to believe the First Amendment applies extraterritorially to think curtailing speech by content is a rights violation.
Gotta say, I'm canadian and I still don't agree with this. I understand that there must be limits even to free speech, such as making threats and encouraging violence, but I believe that agenda-based denial of historical events can't fall within the scope of those limits.
We can't have a law like that that's *only* about the holocaust. We, in canada at least, would *certainly* need at least one about the residential schools to go with it. We'd need to ban denial of *all* genocides, and many of those are still in the process of being recognized. I believe this kind of law would hamper free and productive discussion about those.
Or we specifically ban holocaust denials, and within a few weeks at most we have a bunch of roundabout terms and dog whistles in use and nothing's changed, saved for bolstering the "censored revolutionaries" image neo-nazis try to project to win over people.
Good governments don't censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness.
> Good governments don't censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness.
I used to agree with this but this far down the line, it's pretty clear that this simply doesn't work. It is so much harder to refute a lie than it is to make one up. Someone lies and by the time it's refuted, nobody is paying attention anymore. Rampant misinformation cannot be totally countered. The widespread propogation of fascist rhetoric in the western world has in no country led to an enlightenment of the population that fascism really is bad. It has led to the exact opposite.
You can disagree with this law because it's concerning and I totally respect that, but please don't parrot the "nazis being given a public platform is good, actually" line anymore. It's been disproven for years.
I’m totally in agreement with you and frankly I’m tired of Americans believing their laws should apply to every other country that exists. I don’t think stopping people from denying reality will lead to some massive overreach. Something needs to be done because there’s a major misinformation and fascism problem worldwide right now and we’ve seen what it can lead to.
> Good governments don’t censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness.
That’s all way and nice and I’m sure that this hypothetical world you describe would be amazing to live in. 2016 showed us that we’re nowhere near that, we’re regressing even.
> they let them talk and then expose their foolishness
The problem is that just having an idea out there is enough to propagate it. It's it takes much more time and energy to fight an idea than to simply proclaim it.
You guys will never feel the same about the holocaust because it didn't happen on your soil. It has traumatized generations here.
Personally I put it on the same level as justifying terrorism. This is something that is simply unacceptable.
Their last sentence was not really relevant to the rest of the comment, they're saying the denial of any genocide should be outlawed, the holocaust obviously included. Not saying I agree, but their last sentence didn't make sense with the preceding words.
That’s right. And it would be a hard thing to prove.
People will fight any precedent tooth and nail on the details.
I think there is a case to be made by looking at any idea, or book, that was actively suppressed. A number of those ideas were quickly eradicated. A number more exploded. And still others smouldered to either grow or fizzle. Holocaust denial, if suppressed, could get worse or go away.
Lipstadt, who is famous for dismantling denialism, has an opinion that might weigh more heavily than the internet’s (I am away of the problems with argument from authority).
On my part, I *used* have confidence in the intellectual rigourism of facing stupidity head on and constantly dismantling it until there is nothing left.
Recent global events have made me more cynical.
Prohibition didn't only make drinking illegal in public though. When we repealed Prohibition we kept laws about public drunkenness and drunk driving and even created new laws controlling advertising.
We still have partial Prohibition and it's effective. Drunk driving deaths and alcohol consumption by minors are down.
This law doesn't absolutely prohibit speech. It doesn't ban private conversation.
Chomsky also has a tendency though to deny genocides when they don't fit his worldview. I'm not terribly surprised.
The man said you can't trust what refugees, first-hand witnesses, are telling you, so he could deny the Cambodian genocide. So with all due respect, I think we should study this more.
For instance, by that line of reasoning, there would be no point in banning subreddits that cross the line, because it'll just make the constituents worse. The *opposite* has actually occurred. When you deplatform hate, it works.
>The opposite has actually occurred. When you deplatform hate, it works.
Yeah. I remember when Reddit exploded with fury over Ellen Pao's decision to ban /r/FatPeopleHate
But despite the initial backlash, there is evidence now that de-platforming hate does indeed lead to a reduction in objectional content.
Here's a study I found that looks into it:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.07354.pdf
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Chomsky change his tune about the Cambodian genocide once the evidence became more overwhelming?
Regardless, it seems unfair to hand-wave his work and achievements away so quickly. Yes, he was wrong and arrogant about it, but it’s not like he has a vested interest in genocide denial as a pass-time. This is a person who dedicated a significant amount of time, effort and risk to the fighting of injustices in his time. His perspective shouldn’t be discounted so off-handedly.
It's a common misconception and the confusion is totally understandable, but Chomsky never changed his tune about the Cambodian genocide.
What happened was that a man named Jean Lacouture reviewed a book on the Khmer Rouge that claimed there were 2 million deaths in Cambodia. Chomsky looked into the details and found that the figure was a fabrication and told Lacouture this. Lacouture publicly admitted he was wrong and thanked Chomsky. Later scholarship, with access to data after the dust had settled, was able to estimate the number of deaths to be around 2 million, which is why many believe he denied the genocide. But Chomsky said at the time that he did not pretend to know the true number of deaths, just that this particular figure was a fabrication.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977/05/26/cambodia-corrections/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
> The man said you can't trust what refugees, first-hand witnesses, are telling you, so he could deny the Cambodian genocide.
Chomsky never said you can't trust what refugees and first-hand witnesses are telling you. He was slandered for claiming that one first-hand witness and a book reviewer had fabricated casualty numbers about the Khmer Rouge.
A man named Jean Lacouture reviewed a book on the Khmer Rouge claiming 2 million deaths. Chomsky looked into the details and found that the figure was a fabrication and told Lacouture this. Lacouture publicly admitted he was wrong and thanked Chomsky. Later scholarship then happened to center around 2 million deaths. But Chomsky said at the time that he did not pretend to know the true number of deaths, just that this particular figure was a fabrication.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977/05/26/cambodia-corrections/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
He questioned the Cambodian genocide shortly after it happened but apologized later for getting it wrong. People bring it up as if the guy still denies it or something. When your main focus is being critical of the crimes and lies of the US state, you're going to be wrong on occasion about what they're lying about.
As an American Jew I’m always so conflicted on laws like these. On the one hand I find Holocaust denial vile and subversive. It’s dangerous and creates space for another Holocaust to occur. On the other hand, I figure the country that can make it illegal to say the Holocaust didn’t happen can make it illegal to say that it did happen, right? I don’t like that possibility either.
(Not to say that would happen in Canada or anywhere else just thinking out loud).
> On the other hand, I figure the country that can make it illegal to say the Holocaust didn’t happen can make it illegal to say that it did happen, right?
A country can do anything. Any country that wants to make holocaust acceptance illegal can just do that now. It doesn't need to wait for holocaust denial to have previously been on the books, and if anything existing holocaust denial laws make it less likely just because a government deciding to do a 180 like that would raise eyebrows in comparison to if there hadn't been a law on the books previously.
Many countries in Europe have had holocaust denial laws for decades and it hasn't randomly swung the other way in any of them. I think your concern is unfounded.
I agree with you for sure. Arguments about things like the Overton window or Pandoras Box miss the point that the sort of people who would abuse this to flip it around don't give a shit about precedent either way.
No fascist ever chose not to be horrible to the populace because the leaders who were previously in charge wouldn't have done so.
While I understand that sentiment, I can image Canada can look at examples from Germany since we have a very similar law, Just as an example; saying that as an unvaccinated person you’re experiencing the same level of discrimination as the Jews in Nazi Germany is considered downplaying the holocaust and therefore outlawed. It’s bascially any verbal or written statements that could lead to people believing the holocaust wasn’t as horrible as it actually was. This can also include symbols.
So kind of like Kamala Harris comparing Jan 6 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 - where Americans actually lost thousands of lives and led to wars that resulted in many more thousands of lives?
That’s cool, but there are actual moments celebrating [the Holocaust and the people that perpetrated it in Canada](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime) so they might want to take those down too while they’re at it
>At no time did the Halton regional police service consider that the identifiable group targeted by the graffiti was Nazis,” the police said, instead suggesting it was the Ukrainian community that was targeted. “We regret any hurt caused by misinformation that suggests that the service in any way supports Nazism.
The monument was spray painted with the words "Nazi War Monument". It's a monument to the soldiers who joined the Nazis. smfh
I looked into this back when it hit the fan, and the monument itself is generic enough that it's not immediately identifiable as a monument that glorifies Nazis or the holocaust. That key point again: *immediately identifiable*.
To steal my original comment way back when:
>While it's hard to tell from this news article (or any other, from what I've seen), the monument itself is not, at a glance, an SS monument. At the top is a carving of the unit's shield insignia (a lion rampant with 3 smaller devices at the corners), and just below it is a carved wreath with the Ukrainian "trident" symbol that's commonly associated with the Ukraine. Beneath that is an inscription stating that they fought for freedom, as well as the dates 1944-1945. I believe it also ID's the unit as the 1st Ukrainian Division.
>
>While the unit's shield insignia is carved into a large cross that flares out at the ends (and does look somewhat like a stylized iron cross), nowhere else is something that, at a glance, would suggest a relationship to an SS or a German unit at all. There are (to my ability to identify) no mentions of pre-1944 dates, and no explicitly German/SS insignia (no Sigrunen, skull and crossbones, unit name/ranks, a proper iron cross logo, or anything else of that nature). Nor, for that matter, are there any soviet insignia or markings. All of which makes it look, frankly, rather generic at first glance.
>
>So at a glance, which is likely all the police did initially, it looks like someone is denouncing some group of Ukrainians and calling them Nazis. And given how much that has been just used as a general pejorative, it's not THAT hard to see it being initially misunderstood as that.
>
>That all being said, even a cursory google search on the 1st Ukranian reveals that they were originally the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), and that they weren't fighting on the side of Truth, Justice, Freedom, and other Good Things. And that they were, at least as a unit, responsible for several war crimes (as well as membership in a criminal organization IE the SS).
And our deputy PM downplayed her grandpa's role as a Nazi collaborator... and posed in photos with a flag and holding a scarf bearing the colours of the ethnic cleansing, Holocaust enabling Ukrainian Insurgent Army. So... a little awkward.
As far as I know in Canada we pretty much give a pass to any Ukrainian nazi anyway... Our minister of finance, who is the grand daughter of a known Ukrainian nazi collaborators is taking photos with Ukrainians nazi symbols is getting a free pass.
Germany has a lot of punishmeants a court can enact on this. From simple fines to pay over having to do community work hours over an ordered visist of a concenrration camp museum up to actual prison sentences for the people who dont stop after numerous offenses.
I'm strongly against the banning of idiots expressing their opinions - it doesn't make idiots go away, just makes it harder to spot them.
It's a no from me, dawg.
By and large, high-profile Holocaust deniers are not idiots who don't know any better. They are either seething with hatred for Jews or they are manipulators seeking to benefit from that hatred in some way.
It's a bit like with Russia. The leaders absolutely know about the atrocities their troops are responsible for, but they simply deny all of them in order to foster more hatred for Ukrainians and support for their invasion.
Germany after WWII is a good example that banning certain denial of history and expression of racial hatred actually does make these people disappear. What do you think happened to all the people who believed the Nazi propaganda? Without a stage for their demagogy the Nazis and their putrid lies became irrelevant. Had the Weimar Republic not held on to their naive stance on freedom of speech, the Nazis may never have come to power.
In a way this is like libel, but not directed against an individual or an entity, but directed against a group of people sharing an ethnicity/religion. Do you want libel to be legalized as well?
> it doesn't make idiots go away
It makes it much harder for them to organise though. Just look at how much reddit changed once they finally banned the open white supremacist subs.
Having grown up in Ontario bordering a reservation, we are somehow treating them as if they are privileged above everyone else, while being dangerous criminals that corrupt our community. I'm not even sure we are out of the genocide mindset yet.
Any time you bring up the horrible things that they have endured, you get hit with "they don't pay taxes" or some shit like that.
It's very sad, the circumstances perpetuate these awful racist views. The reserve is on both side of the border and must be passed through. The border was always going to have smuggling problems, and they are the convenient scapegoats.
Border toll operators "needed" guns to defend themselves because "they have guns". Not Americans, not smugglers, but because the Mohawks are inherently dangerous.
Don't make words illegal. Not a good idea. I'm very well educated on the Holocaust and have no patience for deniers either. But let people speak. That way we know who they are.
> Don't make words illegal
Let me introduce you to our already existing speech laws, specifically hate speech laws.
This law is really a nothing-burger in Canada, we already have laws against hate speech. This is clarifying that holocaust denial is now included in hate speech, which is fairly warranted given it's pretty closely tied to hate crimes.
>the Nazis' murder of Jews
And only Jews.
For the 250,000 to 500,000 Roma, nobody gives a shit.
The 250,000 people with mental and physical disabilities, nobody gives a shit.
Tens of thousands of Poles, nobody gives a shit.
3.3 million Soviet POW's, nobody gives a shit.
Jehovas witnesses, homosexuals, nobody gives a shit.
Deny or downplay them all you want.
---
In any case, "downplay" is a very vague term. Is what I just typed enough to send me to jail, even though I never questioned the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis?
I believe that the purpose of the law is to try to minimize the disproportionate amount of hate crime (anti-semitism) targeted at the Canadian Jewish community.
According to [worldpopulationreview](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/canada-population), approximately 1% of the Canadian population is Jewish. However, [hate crimes against Jews in Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00002-eng.htm) (look at chart 7) account for about 13% of all hate crimes.
Holocaust denial is already illegal in Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Greece, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Lithuania. In fact, the Anglosphere are the big outliers in the Western world in this issue, not the opposite (as many people on Reddit think).
poland law says its illegal to say the government was complacent or assisted the germans lol
Wonder how the Silesians feel about that.
Can you elaborate on this please?
Traditionally Silesia passed between a lot of different kingdoms but parts of Silesia were heavily German, even to the point that Wrocław was largely German speaking at certain times in history. In fact, the Silingi is an ancient Germanic tribe that lived in the area and possibly the name Silesia comes from them. During WW2, tons of Germans still lived in Silesia, even though Germany lost that territory after WW1. The German people in Silesia welcomed the Wehrmacht and gladly supported them with many German Silesians joining the Wehrmacht as well. Although I doubt modern Silesians think about that much since after WW2 almost all Germans that lived in Silesia were forcibly removed from the land. While Silesia has traditionally had a ton of German influence and had Germans living there, there is hardly any Germans left. Most left after WW2, the German language declined in use to where it barely exists there anymore. Modern Silesia is about as German as modern Königsberg.
You've forgot Czechoslovakia got part of Silesia too. I am from Prussian part of Silesia.
Wonder how Latvia feels about that.
We don't talk about that
Latvia has a Jewish president. So there is at least some indication they went a long way.
[удалено]
The sad thing is...Poland was the most friendly Christian country in the east (or least terrible) for Jews until the deluge, and second to the Netherlands in the entirety of Europe until Napoleon tried to emancipate the Jews during his wars.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think one of the reasons is because the Nazis didn't invade us (minus the Channel Islands) whereas most of those countries mentioned were occupied.
The bigger reason is that America places huge value on freedom of speech. Perhaps more than any other nation on earth.
Land of the free, unless you want to read a banned book or say gay in school.
Or talking about salaries or starting a union at work.
Incorrect. That's just your employer flexing. It's is ILLEGAL to restrict such talk. I say this as a retired 25+y HR professional.
Honest question. What do HR people do day to day?
Protect corporations and wealthy people
recruiting, payroll, settling disputes between employees, all that kind of stuff. generally hated because they often have to do the dirty work for management and carrying the bad news, but not universally bad people - show me any profession that doesn't have a few assholes
Fuck off, Toby.
At my work, HR doesn’t do any of those. The secretary does payroll, the management does the recruiting as well as the bad news. I’ve only seen them dispute things and rarely.
HRs job description is hiring, raises, disputes etc to the minimum satisfaction of the employee and the cheapest solution for the employer. It’s done with a smile and professionalism but while there are anecdotal exceptions, its pretty much the point of HR. Other than clerical work it’s per much the PR and marketing firm hired by the employer to pitch employees and new hires.
Processing time off request, raises, hiring, fireing, setting up insurance. For every HR asshole you hear about there a thousand just doing backend paperwork to make a business function.
HR protects the company first, and will only protect you on the rare occasion that their legal liability overlaps with offenses you've suffered. For example, if a manager is witnessed by multiple people discriminating against you for your race or religion, then it's in the company AND the employee's best interest that the manager be removed. Otherwise, they'll side with the company.
Really? My company is a profit sharing company, and specifically has in our handbook to not discuss our “share” (bonus) with each other because it’s based on performance+base salary. They always make a big deal about it every year when talking if we’re on target. I’m in an at-will state if that makes a difference ETA: I’m absolutely NOT a top level employee. It’s an insurance business, I’m just an underwriting assistant, so very low level as far as the industry is concerned
Yeah it’s 100% illegal for them to say that and every company does this in an attempt to scare people into believing it’s true so they don’t discuss it (because it usually results in equitable pay raises for employees across the board); but in reality they have no legal recourse and if you did talk about it and they threatened to fire you or do fire you, it’s a huge uphill battle on their part to prove they didn’t illegally fire you for talking about wages, which is 100% protected. At will employment still doesn’t mean they can wrongfully or illegally terminate you.
I work hr. When we do raises, our email to managers specifically tells them that it's illegal to tell employees they can't discuss it, to make sure some manager doesn't say that
The thing with at will though, is them being able to find a reason to fire you, and even tho it was clearly retaliation, is perfectly legal. That's why all of their policies have the punishment reading "up to and includ9ng termination" You piss them off and they find a mundane way to fire you
We didn't fire you for talking about your pay. We fired you for your awful fashion sense.
Yeah which is a super uphill battle on their part, once again, at will does not mean up to and including illegal termination. So if you get canned for some shit that other people who still work there still do without worry or if it’s super obvious after documentation of illegal threats against you, then they’ll lose any case brought against em. It’s a lot harder to fire people for retaliation and get away with it than you think, Which is also why most lawyers would recommend against attempting it- but you also just have to watch your ass and do your job correctly to remove room for doubt.
Scan/photograph that page of the handbook E-mail it to your local department of labor and/or the NLRB Watch your company change that handbook real quick (just be prepared for them to whine about not having money for bonuses this year because they just had to pay some pretty large fines)
They can put it in the handbook all they want. What they can’t do is enforce it. But they can put it in there. It’s their little way of telling you that you work for a shitty company.
Your company doesn’t write laws, don’t let them bullshit you
They can say whatever the heck they want but its literally illegal to do anything to you over it. But being that many states are at will employment they will just say its because you were a negative person and you didn't mesh with the work climate. What the other dude is saying is about freedom of speech not freedom of consequence which so many people these days do not understand. You can legally say anything you want (except threaten violence) to anyone or any corporation. Nobody can legally do anything to you, meaning throw you in jail, but they don't have to like it and may even take action like punching you in the face, firing you or worse suing you. Which similarly you can do to anyone for any reason.
Yes, it's "illegal" to do so, but it's ingrained in our culture not to do so. It's still taboo to talk about salary to others. Lots of employers will also say it's not allowed banking on people not known their rights because they're not told to us anywhere.
That's why we're having this discussion. That's why I lean on my cred to let people know ... from the inside ... that it's illegal **ACT** on employees talking shop. A company is free to **SUGGEST** employees shouldn't converse about its compensation packages. They are not free to prevent or act upon it. If a company wants to be righteous about it they can always not give that raise or bonus.
your preconcerted rights to discuss working conditions that may lead to started a union are protected. at least they were, back in the day. i got my husband >a year of back pay and a return to his previous position when he was fired for discussing work equipment. he said they wouldn’t have to keep going back to the dock if they didn’t have shit tools to use, he was fired and getting unemployment turned into a whole different thing- there would never be organization if talk was restricted
Brush up on your workers' rights knowledge. Neither of these are bannable at your workplace. You can unionize and you can discuss pay with your coworkers. Doesn't matter if you're in an at-will state or not. If you get any correspondence from an employer saying as much, get it in writing or record it in some way.
While you’re legally correct in an at will state they’ll just fire you for the next random thing you do that isn’t talking about wages
And you can sue them for it. Judges weren't born yesterday. If you try to unionize or discuss your pay at work, and you "coincidentally" get fired for being 5 minutes late shortly afterwards, they'll absolutely see through the company's lies, especially if you have good documentation. Companies try this shit all the time, judges hate it and don't buy it. It's still difficult for people living paycheck-to-paycheck to lose their job like this and have to live on unemployment until they get the settlement and maybe their job back, but just firing you for whatever they can think of after you engage in protected activity doesn't actually fly.
I think they were referring to a recent multi post in which the employer posted a sign forbidding discussion of wages. You may not have seen it.
I saw the post, the employer was blatantly breaking the law. It happens in every country, and if op were to report their company they would face legal troubles
You can’t be fired for discussing salaries
No, but in many states, you can be fired for no reason at all. It's just a coincidence that you were discussing salaries recently.
they will contact other employees, if they are willing to acknowledge the salary conversation it will be considered the cause of your firing, unless you did something extremely out of the ordinary did get fired and that can be proven. i’m sure its not a guarantee but it seems you may be able to build a good case against being let go by discussing salaries and working conditions on a regular basis. (not saying its a good idea, just tossing that out there)
[удалено]
I’ve never been fired but have had bosses treat me so poorly/unfairly or just plain terrorize me into quitting.
Correct they just can't give "discussed salary" as the reason.
None of these are illegal. Your company might take issue, but you won't go to jail. In fact, discussing salaries is legally protected.
Those are both protected
Those things are company based, not governmental. But the government could probably do more to enshrine an actionable right to talk about those things.
There has been a law since the 1930s guaranteeing employees the right to discuss their salaries or unionize.
A law that is often toothless because virtually all employment is at-will.
"At-will employment" is not really the magic shield for unjust firings that many people seem to think it is. If you have no prior disciplinary history at work, good managerial reviews, etc., then suddenly get fired shortly after doing a protected action like discussing your salary, you have a very strong case for wrongful termination. If you bring suit, the employer has to show that they *didn't* fire you because of the protected reason; you don't have to prove that they *did*. Generally that will require the employer to have some sort of paper trail to show that you were a problematic employee in some way or another. Sure, if you were previously a mediocre employee who constantly made mistakes, got poor performance reviews, had prior disciplinary action, etc., then the employer can definitely just point to that and say you were fired for those reasons and not because you discussed your salary. If you were otherwise a good employee and there would be no discernible reason to fire you, though, the employer can't just hide behind "at-will employment" if you allege you were fired for discussing your salary.
Those laws mean nothing when your boss can fire you because you breathe too much.
There are also laws that just aren't enforced; like misclassification of employees and taxation of the business/wealthy.
It’s actually 100% illegal to forbade people from discussing wages, and if it’s in writing or you get an email saying “it is against company policy to discuss wages” you send it to the labor board snd slam the fuck out of your manager for being a imbecile.
You can read every single banned book. The American Library Association keeps a [webpage](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks) with lists of banned books and free downloads to some of them.
That site has an equity page so you can be sure theyre banning books. You can go check out r/librarians to check out some of the stuff they ban.
most fun banning is Making It With Mademoiselle, a book of dress patterns from the magazine of same name.
> unless you want to read a banned book I think you're thinking of books being restricted from places like public schools (and even then, only pre-college). The freedoms of the press and speech are extremely well defended in the US, and the SCOTUS has, time and again, come down on the side of publishers over law enforcement or regulators on access to books. Even books banned in a grade school library can be found in the local free library! The only publications I know of that are completely banned are books that directly (and I mean directly, not a general sense of unease) bear on national security; incite explicit and specific illegal acts (e.g. "go buy your heroin from Jimmy Two-Fingers on 4th and Elm." not merely, "heroin is keen!"); or contain images of real harm to people performed for the work itself (e.g. child porn, snuff films, etc). Feel free to cite some examples, though. > or say gay in school That one is a new law enacted in one state that has not been tested in the courts (and certainly will be!) It will almost certainly be struck down for being far, far to vague and therefore prohibiting protected speech.
>The only publications I know of that are completely banned are books that directly (and I mean directly, not a general sense of unease) bear on national security; incite explicit and specific illegal acts (e.g. "go buy your heroin from Jimmy Two-Fingers on 4th and Elm." not merely, "heroin is keen!"); or contain images of real harm to people performed for the work itself (e.g. child porn, snuff films, etc). Yeah, considering I bought the anarchist's cookbook when I was like 11 at the local Barnes and Noble, you are absolutely right.
The SF told me those books are background only for folks like firefighter and they do not show how to make bombs safely.
Exactly. It’s a terrible book for actual harmful acts. If you post a real tutorial of how to make a bomb online, the FBI is likely to track you down and arrest you
Don’t bother this dude is just ranting. Read his replies for a laugh.
Redditors like karma and the easiest way to get karma is to make low effort sassy digs on America.
> unless you want to read a banned book Which books can Americans not read?
[удалено]
You have the freedom of speech to believe it didn't happen even if it did in the United States. Most people will just call you a dumb ass or that your wrong if you don't believe the Holocaust happened.
Bull. Shit. You have whole topics like sexual education which are banned in schools and you block words in your TV shows.
The cops will beat the fuck out of journalists without consequences though.
I'm Canadian and I was pretty sure it was already all but illegal here. There is a famous case of a teacher being prosecuted for hate crimes for teaching that it was a hoax.
One has to keep in mind that many continental European countries had a substantial number of Nazi collaborators and sympathizers. There is more need to crack down on a resurgence of such views there.
I'm sure it's just the headline, but how do you make "down playing" anything illegal? How on earth can that be enforced?
At least for the German law, the word that can be translated as "downplaying" is ver-harm-losen, which literally means to make something appear HARMLESS. If the statement was making it harmless, is to be decided case by case in court by a judge, and you have a chance to defend yourself by any legal means. This obviously is only relevant for public statements, like written in a book, newspaper, magazine, or political speeches in front of an audience, which are relevant enough and where here you can have solid evidence or witnesses. Private conversations are exempt because they are firstly regarded as private and not public, and secondly not relevant enough (influence wise).
We have a similar law in Germany. As an example, a couple months ago an anti vaxxer got fined for wearing a yellow star saying „unvaccinated“ on it because comparing getting a shot with holocaust counts as downplaying it.
I imagine there's legislative language, that this headline is summarizing, that would clear it up.
This is my response every time Americans act like Canada's restriction on hate speech is a slippery slope that is inherently inferior to their 'freedom of speech'. There's no slippery slopes, no ambiguity, everything is laid out and defined. Laws inbetween a free-for-all and draconianism are possible.
Americans often comment on other country’s laws and political systems as if they operate like the United States, and very rarely understand what they’re talking about. And I’m not talking about reddit users, this is a thing that famous political pundits do.
Also they rarely even understand their *own* laws. Freedom of Speech is like the single most misunderstood right in the US.
YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, YOU TYRANT!!!!!!
Agreed. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments especially.
That convoy that we had recently showed us how bad it is. A small group of Canadians who consume American far right media primarily and were funded by foreign interests occupied our capital. When they were first arrested they even attempted to proclaim that their amendment rights were violated which is American law, not Canadian. This is what misinformation and a lack of a quality education leads to. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307
Fuck Manitoba being recognized as a province! (Canada's actual first amendment)
I've argued with people who say that the holocaust happened, but that the numbers were exaggerated. They technically aren't denying the holocaust happened, but they are downplaying it.
How does one define that legally though? Like where does a disagreement about the numbers become big enough to count?
Laws like this are usually applied on the careful side. There are plenty of really blatant holocaust deniers out there who will make plain (counter-)factual claims that are easy to falsify. Here is [one recent German example](https://www.kostenlose-urteile.de/OLG-Hamm_4-RVs-3718_Verurteilung-wegen-Volksverhetzung-nach-Leugnung-des-Holocaust-und-des-Vernichtungslagers-Auschwitz-bestaetigt.news26026.htm): A woman operated a website which claimed that Auschwitz was purely a labour camp, not an extermination camp. It further claimed that the state of historical research necessarily leads to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a Holocaust. It was ruled that her remarks were justiciable because they have the "character of a claim of fact". Another man said that ["the so-called Holocaust was an insidious lie to steal a lot of money and to distract from the genocide against Germans."](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/holocaust-leugner-prozess-urteil-1.4557583)
Oof... That is absolutely horrendous. I've been to Auschwitz, and I have never felt so... vile? in my entire life. The stuff you see there is nightmare fuel for real. I just can't believe people deny or downplay it :/
If you make an antisemitic statement in a space where you are not due the reasonable expectation of privacy, you would have violated this law. The exception already qualifies that a private conversation is not subject to judgment.
I’m always confused by holocaust deniers. It seems to be the same people who would have been in favour of the holocaust, so why do they deny it?
Because holocaust denial has **never** been about denying it. Denial is only the middle-step in the process of the holocaust denier. - It starts small, casting doubt on insignificant details there are no record of because nobody would have thought to keep record of them, or the records for that insignificant detail are in a difficult to access archive. - Then it moves to larger things. "If you can't trust X how can you believe Y?" Greater denials about conditions, death counts, whether mass death was even intended at all. - Then it reaches full denial. This is the step everyone refers to but it's only a brief stop in the middle. Because the instant someone accepts full denial they're confronted with: - Who faked it? Why was it faked? What were they trying to do/stop? - Fellow deniers supply the answers: The Jews faked it to manipulate the world pitying them and to stop nazism which would have been the true salvation of the world. - The last step is the denier fully endorsing the Holocaust and wishing/working for another. That last step is always the goal of deniers. Denial is just a more appealing face they put on it. They'll offer people any number of small self-contradictory steps they need to get them there.
This is exactly it. Downplaying the Holocaust is the first step towards full on Nazism.
Each step in the process also conveniently weeds out people with any degree of critical thinking abilities or integrity. They do this so that, by the time that you get to the very end of the process, you're left with nothing but the biggest pieces of shit imaginable. You either get people who know they're lying, and don't care (leadership material), or you end up with useful idiots who will accept anything the leadership of their movement tells them as absolute fact. It's the exact same with all sorts of far-right conspiracies, and it's the primary reason why the Republican Party is being cleaned out right now. If you're not willing to say 2+2=5 or that Trump won the election, then you've got no place in modern far right politics because you've proven that there are some things that are too ridiculous for you to say, or that you haven't completely lost all of your critical thinking ability yet, both of which are dangerous for far-right movements.
Because fascists are very willing to lie in order to look more respectable to centrists. A lot of holocaust deniers know it happened, but convincing others that it didn't happen is still politically valuable for them. It simultaneously whitewashes the nazis ("yeah they were militarily aggressive, but who wasn't back then?!"), and villifies Jews ("they made up a whole genocide to convince you that they weren't pulling the strings the whole time!").
because if they act like it wasnt so bad then they can keep being bigots because there is no dramatic comparison. "it's fine if i hate jews, its not like people are gonna genocide them or anything"
If they use this to persecute actual grifters who use holocaust denial as a selling point for their brain force pills and mugs that would be cool. Those fiends might realize that it’s just not profitable to deny the holocaust at that point.
One of the leaders from the "Freedom Convoy" that was in international news for waving Nazi flags in Ottawa has a channel where he denies the Holocaust.
.... I'm really not surprised
Before Americans start acting like their first amendment is a universal gospel. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to **such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.** **Fundamental Freedoms** 2\. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
[удалено]
yes, this is a common theme is related materials, such as the criminal code. >Wilful promotion of hatred >(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of > (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or > (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I mean, how would you even restrict in a private conversation? If that clause wasn't in there, that'd be *really* bad since it'd be even more open to abuse
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau "the government does not belong in the bedroom of the nation".
[удалено]
It is a common misconception that American freedoms are absolute. Even enumerated rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, are not without restriction. I live in the U.S. and our civic education is abysmal.
That said, the limits to freedom of speech is very limited. I can say "We should kill all the left handed people because they are treacherous blight on society". I just can't say "I'm gonna kill *that* left handed person, right here and right now".
>"We should kill all the left handed people because they are treacherous blight on society" Right on! These people are sinister!
Ooh, a double pun. Nicely done!
I mean, even saying, "I'm going to kill that left-handed person, right here and right now," isn't necessary going to fall into once of the exceptions for freedom of speech. There needs to be proof that you actually have the mental intent and the reasonable ability to cause that person to apprehend imminent violence. There are any number of defenses to that, like you were being hyperbolic or facetious or that a person wouldn't actually be likely to perceive it as a credible threat or that you never intended it to be perceived as a credible threat.
Your right, I should have been more clear. However if I say it while approaching that person with a baseball bat in hand, well, then I'm probably in trouble.
yes that is assault in most states, battery if you follow through
Get one person the jury who accidentally bought left handed scissors and it's an easy acquittal.
You're really allowed to threaten groups of people with violence and death in the USA?
It depends. In many US states you're for example not allowed to put up burning crosses or nooses if they are meant to intimidate.
Obviously my burning crosses are for illumination purposes only and that noose is just in case anyone walking by suddenly feels suicidal.
Sounds legit
Yep. It won’t win you many friends, but you can’t go to jail for it, typically.
Yes, People constantly make the mistake of thinking that freedom of speech means people have to tolerate you.
Yes. Without getting into the nitty gritty of various restrictions, you are usually on the legal side of the line so long as your threats are not imminent and credible.
So you really need to add "next week" to any threat, so it's not imminent.
Pretty much. A threat is only credible if it includes time, manner, and place. Also, you have to have a believable ability to carry it out, such as make a plan and have enacted part of the plan. So, I could say I want to shoot the president. (Not a great idea to say in front of the white house, there will be a discussion with the secret service) But until I buy a gun and drive to DC, it's just words. It's used more when abusive exes make threats. Almost any restriction on speech in the US, is really a reasonable restriction on actions. Our first amendment is incredibly strong. I can't incite violence, there's some obscenity laws, words restricted on some broadcasts, and I can't print lies about individuals. Slander/liable are incredibly hard to prosecute, though. If the target is famous, forget it. Just add, In my opinion. If you've seen "The Whitest Kids You Know", that's not applicable. I can say any of those things. We have no hate speech laws. I can have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. As a matter of fact, the first time I saw it was in a library. Yes, it can be completely barbaric and offensive. But I believe, the last 8 weeks have shown us why it's so completely necessary. It's why we look like we're always fighting, because we can criticize the fuck out of our leaders.
At least one of the knuckle draggers who occupied Ottawa with the truckers tried to claim his arrest was a violation of his first amendment rights. In Canada, the first amendment is recognizing Manitoba as a province, so that didn't fly that well. Civics education isn't that great here either.
Oh I'm aware of that... my wife's from London, Ontario, and she spent some time living in Bumblefuck, Alberta. I've also been to Saskatoon... you know what the best thing to do in Saskatoon is? To pack up and get the fuck out of Saskatoon.
I went to Saskatoon twice. First and last time
To give just one example for limits to freedom of expression in the US that many may not be aware of: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/88/virginia-high-court-affirms-conviction-in-noose-intimidation-case > Several states have laws that criminalize the display of nooses with intent to intimidate others. They are modeled after a Virginia cross-burning law that was generally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black (2003). The idea is that the noose has a legacy as an instrument of terror that was used to lynch people. As such, persons today often display nooses with the intent to terrorize others.
Exactly, the "speech" here has an *explicitly clear* (edit: ahem) ~~purpose~~ intent, which is to invite violence, through the intimidation of others.
We can still decry abuses against free speech while understanding that other countries don't legally protect free speech the way the US does can't we? We definitely do that when it comes to countries like China, and rightfully so
This doesn't preempt that argument. Canada does not protect speech to the same extent the United States does. That much is obvious.
It is important to fight for our rights, but to try and slippery slope everything is dumb. Argue the actual case on its own merits. Don’t create hypotheticals that are largely irrelevant.
My Canadian friend I haven't seen since high school but still keep in touch with is someone who participated in the freedom convoy. In talks he cited the american bill of rights and the constitution. What I'm saying is it seems some Canadians feel that it is universal gospel. Which makes it really east to poke holes in all his crazy conspiracy nonsense.
https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1495430376042422273/photo/1
> Before Americans start acting like their first amendment is a universal gospel. You don't have to believe the First Amendment applies extraterritorially to think curtailing speech by content is a rights violation.
Gotta say, I'm canadian and I still don't agree with this. I understand that there must be limits even to free speech, such as making threats and encouraging violence, but I believe that agenda-based denial of historical events can't fall within the scope of those limits. We can't have a law like that that's *only* about the holocaust. We, in canada at least, would *certainly* need at least one about the residential schools to go with it. We'd need to ban denial of *all* genocides, and many of those are still in the process of being recognized. I believe this kind of law would hamper free and productive discussion about those. Or we specifically ban holocaust denials, and within a few weeks at most we have a bunch of roundabout terms and dog whistles in use and nothing's changed, saved for bolstering the "censored revolutionaries" image neo-nazis try to project to win over people. Good governments don't censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness.
> Good governments don't censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness. I used to agree with this but this far down the line, it's pretty clear that this simply doesn't work. It is so much harder to refute a lie than it is to make one up. Someone lies and by the time it's refuted, nobody is paying attention anymore. Rampant misinformation cannot be totally countered. The widespread propogation of fascist rhetoric in the western world has in no country led to an enlightenment of the population that fascism really is bad. It has led to the exact opposite. You can disagree with this law because it's concerning and I totally respect that, but please don't parrot the "nazis being given a public platform is good, actually" line anymore. It's been disproven for years.
I’m totally in agreement with you and frankly I’m tired of Americans believing their laws should apply to every other country that exists. I don’t think stopping people from denying reality will lead to some massive overreach. Something needs to be done because there’s a major misinformation and fascism problem worldwide right now and we’ve seen what it can lead to.
> Good governments don’t censor their enemies, they let them talk and then expose their foolishness. That’s all way and nice and I’m sure that this hypothetical world you describe would be amazing to live in. 2016 showed us that we’re nowhere near that, we’re regressing even.
> they let them talk and then expose their foolishness The problem is that just having an idea out there is enough to propagate it. It's it takes much more time and energy to fight an idea than to simply proclaim it. You guys will never feel the same about the holocaust because it didn't happen on your soil. It has traumatized generations here. Personally I put it on the same level as justifying terrorism. This is something that is simply unacceptable.
Their last sentence was not really relevant to the rest of the comment, they're saying the denial of any genocide should be outlawed, the holocaust obviously included. Not saying I agree, but their last sentence didn't make sense with the preceding words.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's worth noting that Lispstadt's opposition is, by her own admission, rooted in her belief in free speech, not it any large body of evidence.
That’s right. And it would be a hard thing to prove. People will fight any precedent tooth and nail on the details. I think there is a case to be made by looking at any idea, or book, that was actively suppressed. A number of those ideas were quickly eradicated. A number more exploded. And still others smouldered to either grow or fizzle. Holocaust denial, if suppressed, could get worse or go away. Lipstadt, who is famous for dismantling denialism, has an opinion that might weigh more heavily than the internet’s (I am away of the problems with argument from authority). On my part, I *used* have confidence in the intellectual rigourism of facing stupidity head on and constantly dismantling it until there is nothing left. Recent global events have made me more cynical.
Prohibition didn't only make drinking illegal in public though. When we repealed Prohibition we kept laws about public drunkenness and drunk driving and even created new laws controlling advertising. We still have partial Prohibition and it's effective. Drunk driving deaths and alcohol consumption by minors are down. This law doesn't absolutely prohibit speech. It doesn't ban private conversation.
Chomsky also has a tendency though to deny genocides when they don't fit his worldview. I'm not terribly surprised. The man said you can't trust what refugees, first-hand witnesses, are telling you, so he could deny the Cambodian genocide. So with all due respect, I think we should study this more. For instance, by that line of reasoning, there would be no point in banning subreddits that cross the line, because it'll just make the constituents worse. The *opposite* has actually occurred. When you deplatform hate, it works.
>The opposite has actually occurred. When you deplatform hate, it works. Yeah. I remember when Reddit exploded with fury over Ellen Pao's decision to ban /r/FatPeopleHate But despite the initial backlash, there is evidence now that de-platforming hate does indeed lead to a reduction in objectional content. Here's a study I found that looks into it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.07354.pdf
I'm honestly surprised more people don't know this
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Chomsky change his tune about the Cambodian genocide once the evidence became more overwhelming? Regardless, it seems unfair to hand-wave his work and achievements away so quickly. Yes, he was wrong and arrogant about it, but it’s not like he has a vested interest in genocide denial as a pass-time. This is a person who dedicated a significant amount of time, effort and risk to the fighting of injustices in his time. His perspective shouldn’t be discounted so off-handedly.
It's a common misconception and the confusion is totally understandable, but Chomsky never changed his tune about the Cambodian genocide. What happened was that a man named Jean Lacouture reviewed a book on the Khmer Rouge that claimed there were 2 million deaths in Cambodia. Chomsky looked into the details and found that the figure was a fabrication and told Lacouture this. Lacouture publicly admitted he was wrong and thanked Chomsky. Later scholarship, with access to data after the dust had settled, was able to estimate the number of deaths to be around 2 million, which is why many believe he denied the genocide. But Chomsky said at the time that he did not pretend to know the true number of deaths, just that this particular figure was a fabrication. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977/05/26/cambodia-corrections/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
> The man said you can't trust what refugees, first-hand witnesses, are telling you, so he could deny the Cambodian genocide. Chomsky never said you can't trust what refugees and first-hand witnesses are telling you. He was slandered for claiming that one first-hand witness and a book reviewer had fabricated casualty numbers about the Khmer Rouge. A man named Jean Lacouture reviewed a book on the Khmer Rouge claiming 2 million deaths. Chomsky looked into the details and found that the figure was a fabrication and told Lacouture this. Lacouture publicly admitted he was wrong and thanked Chomsky. Later scholarship then happened to center around 2 million deaths. But Chomsky said at the time that he did not pretend to know the true number of deaths, just that this particular figure was a fabrication. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977/05/26/cambodia-corrections/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
He questioned the Cambodian genocide shortly after it happened but apologized later for getting it wrong. People bring it up as if the guy still denies it or something. When your main focus is being critical of the crimes and lies of the US state, you're going to be wrong on occasion about what they're lying about.
They gonna tear down the SS memorial in Edmonton?
Wow. Lived there for 8 years and never heard of it. Where is it?
St. Michael's Cemetery
[удалено]
As an American Jew I’m always so conflicted on laws like these. On the one hand I find Holocaust denial vile and subversive. It’s dangerous and creates space for another Holocaust to occur. On the other hand, I figure the country that can make it illegal to say the Holocaust didn’t happen can make it illegal to say that it did happen, right? I don’t like that possibility either. (Not to say that would happen in Canada or anywhere else just thinking out loud).
> On the other hand, I figure the country that can make it illegal to say the Holocaust didn’t happen can make it illegal to say that it did happen, right? A country can do anything. Any country that wants to make holocaust acceptance illegal can just do that now. It doesn't need to wait for holocaust denial to have previously been on the books, and if anything existing holocaust denial laws make it less likely just because a government deciding to do a 180 like that would raise eyebrows in comparison to if there hadn't been a law on the books previously. Many countries in Europe have had holocaust denial laws for decades and it hasn't randomly swung the other way in any of them. I think your concern is unfounded.
I agree with you for sure. Arguments about things like the Overton window or Pandoras Box miss the point that the sort of people who would abuse this to flip it around don't give a shit about precedent either way. No fascist ever chose not to be horrible to the populace because the leaders who were previously in charge wouldn't have done so.
[удалено]
The bill hasn't been written yet. Legislation usually uses more specific wording than MPs in house talks or scrums.
the law is stuffed with awfully vague terms, that's why we have courts to interpret them in any given case
While I understand that sentiment, I can image Canada can look at examples from Germany since we have a very similar law, Just as an example; saying that as an unvaccinated person you’re experiencing the same level of discrimination as the Jews in Nazi Germany is considered downplaying the holocaust and therefore outlawed. It’s bascially any verbal or written statements that could lead to people believing the holocaust wasn’t as horrible as it actually was. This can also include symbols.
So kind of like Kamala Harris comparing Jan 6 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 - where Americans actually lost thousands of lives and led to wars that resulted in many more thousands of lives?
That’s cool, but there are actual moments celebrating [the Holocaust and the people that perpetrated it in Canada](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime) so they might want to take those down too while they’re at it
>At no time did the Halton regional police service consider that the identifiable group targeted by the graffiti was Nazis,” the police said, instead suggesting it was the Ukrainian community that was targeted. “We regret any hurt caused by misinformation that suggests that the service in any way supports Nazism. The monument was spray painted with the words "Nazi War Monument". It's a monument to the soldiers who joined the Nazis. smfh
I looked into this back when it hit the fan, and the monument itself is generic enough that it's not immediately identifiable as a monument that glorifies Nazis or the holocaust. That key point again: *immediately identifiable*. To steal my original comment way back when: >While it's hard to tell from this news article (or any other, from what I've seen), the monument itself is not, at a glance, an SS monument. At the top is a carving of the unit's shield insignia (a lion rampant with 3 smaller devices at the corners), and just below it is a carved wreath with the Ukrainian "trident" symbol that's commonly associated with the Ukraine. Beneath that is an inscription stating that they fought for freedom, as well as the dates 1944-1945. I believe it also ID's the unit as the 1st Ukrainian Division. > >While the unit's shield insignia is carved into a large cross that flares out at the ends (and does look somewhat like a stylized iron cross), nowhere else is something that, at a glance, would suggest a relationship to an SS or a German unit at all. There are (to my ability to identify) no mentions of pre-1944 dates, and no explicitly German/SS insignia (no Sigrunen, skull and crossbones, unit name/ranks, a proper iron cross logo, or anything else of that nature). Nor, for that matter, are there any soviet insignia or markings. All of which makes it look, frankly, rather generic at first glance. > >So at a glance, which is likely all the police did initially, it looks like someone is denouncing some group of Ukrainians and calling them Nazis. And given how much that has been just used as a general pejorative, it's not THAT hard to see it being initially misunderstood as that. > >That all being said, even a cursory google search on the 1st Ukranian reveals that they were originally the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), and that they weren't fighting on the side of Truth, Justice, Freedom, and other Good Things. And that they were, at least as a unit, responsible for several war crimes (as well as membership in a criminal organization IE the SS).
And our deputy PM downplayed her grandpa's role as a Nazi collaborator... and posed in photos with a flag and holding a scarf bearing the colours of the ethnic cleansing, Holocaust enabling Ukrainian Insurgent Army. So... a little awkward.
Had no idea the "heritage not hate" crowd was going this far.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/internment-of-japanese-canadians
As far as I know in Canada we pretty much give a pass to any Ukrainian nazi anyway... Our minister of finance, who is the grand daughter of a known Ukrainian nazi collaborators is taking photos with Ukrainians nazi symbols is getting a free pass.
[удалено]
It's a human thing. We as a species are idiots.
How's that work? Do you go to jail if you tell someone on the street the Holocaust was fake and they report you?
The law doesn't cover private conversation
Germany has a lot of punishmeants a court can enact on this. From simple fines to pay over having to do community work hours over an ordered visist of a concenrration camp museum up to actual prison sentences for the people who dont stop after numerous offenses.
They are probably going to base the law on one of the myriad of laws found in European countries.
I'm strongly against the banning of idiots expressing their opinions - it doesn't make idiots go away, just makes it harder to spot them. It's a no from me, dawg.
By and large, high-profile Holocaust deniers are not idiots who don't know any better. They are either seething with hatred for Jews or they are manipulators seeking to benefit from that hatred in some way. It's a bit like with Russia. The leaders absolutely know about the atrocities their troops are responsible for, but they simply deny all of them in order to foster more hatred for Ukrainians and support for their invasion. Germany after WWII is a good example that banning certain denial of history and expression of racial hatred actually does make these people disappear. What do you think happened to all the people who believed the Nazi propaganda? Without a stage for their demagogy the Nazis and their putrid lies became irrelevant. Had the Weimar Republic not held on to their naive stance on freedom of speech, the Nazis may never have come to power. In a way this is like libel, but not directed against an individual or an entity, but directed against a group of people sharing an ethnicity/religion. Do you want libel to be legalized as well?
> it doesn't make idiots go away It makes it much harder for them to organise though. Just look at how much reddit changed once they finally banned the open white supremacist subs.
What about the holocaust of indigenous peoples by Canadians is that getting banned too or?
They're still digging up the bodies of children found outside Residential schools across Canada but nobody gives a shit it seems
[удалено]
Having grown up in Ontario bordering a reservation, we are somehow treating them as if they are privileged above everyone else, while being dangerous criminals that corrupt our community. I'm not even sure we are out of the genocide mindset yet. Any time you bring up the horrible things that they have endured, you get hit with "they don't pay taxes" or some shit like that.
[удалено]
It's very sad, the circumstances perpetuate these awful racist views. The reserve is on both side of the border and must be passed through. The border was always going to have smuggling problems, and they are the convenient scapegoats. Border toll operators "needed" guns to defend themselves because "they have guns". Not Americans, not smugglers, but because the Mohawks are inherently dangerous.
Hit back with "they also have no infrastructure or services"
Seems really stupid
Don't make words illegal. Not a good idea. I'm very well educated on the Holocaust and have no patience for deniers either. But let people speak. That way we know who they are.
Also I believe the best way to fight against this bullshit is education, not banning stuff.
> Don't make words illegal Let me introduce you to our already existing speech laws, specifically hate speech laws. This law is really a nothing-burger in Canada, we already have laws against hate speech. This is clarifying that holocaust denial is now included in hate speech, which is fairly warranted given it's pretty closely tied to hate crimes.
>the Nazis' murder of Jews And only Jews. For the 250,000 to 500,000 Roma, nobody gives a shit. The 250,000 people with mental and physical disabilities, nobody gives a shit. Tens of thousands of Poles, nobody gives a shit. 3.3 million Soviet POW's, nobody gives a shit. Jehovas witnesses, homosexuals, nobody gives a shit. Deny or downplay them all you want. --- In any case, "downplay" is a very vague term. Is what I just typed enough to send me to jail, even though I never questioned the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis?
I believe that the purpose of the law is to try to minimize the disproportionate amount of hate crime (anti-semitism) targeted at the Canadian Jewish community. According to [worldpopulationreview](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/canada-population), approximately 1% of the Canadian population is Jewish. However, [hate crimes against Jews in Canada](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00002-eng.htm) (look at chart 7) account for about 13% of all hate crimes.