I think concluding “illegal to even study or question history” is a big stretch, but the Canadian government has been criticized widely for plans introduced last year that seem problematic [0].
A key quote:
> The amendment would "prohibit the communication of statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust."
This is widely believed to be unconstitutional in Canada, and it’s not hard to imagine the chilling effect, e.g. is asking an honest question in class considered “private”? I suspect not. Is a question about 4-5 vs 6 million considered “downplaying”? I don’t think most reasonable people would think so, but I don’t think it’s reasonable people we should worry about.
I think many will argue that asking questions and promoting holocaust denial are very different things, and I think they are, but the lines are very blurry.
It’s increasingly popular on social media to immediately label people as the most extreme version of “other/out” for any form of behavior that doesn’t demonstrate complete commitment to the in group. An ambiguous law about holocaust denial implemented under the current social climate seems like a recipe for disaster.
I think holocaust denial and antisemitism are abhorrent, obviously. But it is this fact that seems to empower legislation that threatens freedoms. Various online safety bills seem to belong in a similar category.
Thanks. I can't really believe that this law would really have a practical (chilling) affect for research around that topic. It'd be interesting to see the effect holocaust denial legislature had in the 18 or so countries that implemented it.
Thank you for delivering on that. I am not denying that the holocaust happened, but what bothers me is that people are so quick to claim antisemitism for questioning things.
> What is weird is that they want to make it illegal in Canada and the US to even study or question history.
I don't believe that was ever the case. Holocaust denial is such a pervasive and murderous conspiracy theory that any free and open society cannot tolerate. But denying the Holocaust is not the same as studying it.
In 'my' free and open society other people are free to have ideas and I am free to avoid interaction with those people who's ideas I won't tolerate. I believe that is what it means to not tolerate holocaust denialism.
Absolutely. Freedom of association is critical. That's an individual right. That individual right being upheld is a little different than a society not tolerating an idea, which almost always means suppressing it, and is what the person I was replying to suggested was somehow right.
> If society is 99% people who refuse to associate with a holocaust denier and 1% deniers then what happens?
That's a great question. In short, the 99% of people should tolerate the 1%. They don't need to choose to associate with them, but don't take action against them to silence them.
> I am not a philosopher and I have no idea how to reason about situations where individual rights for individuals and groups of individuals clash.
I think this quote is probably appropriate:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." - John Stuart Mill
That's cool. I don't mind. I'd prefer it if you didn't try and force me to interact with holocaust deniers. I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you want to do?
> I'm sure that we don't need a debate to agree that genocide is something that's not acceptable. Do you disagree?
This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. Denying a genocide happened, however repugnant it may be, is not the same thing as genocide. Pretending it is in order to borrow the weight of genocide is a common tactic used to try to silence arguments without addressing them.
The State of Israel is in practice an apartheid state - specifically it treats citizens differently depending on whether they're Jews or not. Inside Israel, as I understand it, this is not a controversial observation, simply one side sees apartheid as a desirable situation and the other does not. Which we might observe is exactly how it was in South Africa...
Meh. People who throw that word around aren't principled. Take the time to step such a person through why apartheid is an inappropriate term to describe whatever going on in Israel, and they'll just move the goalposts around.
Israel was founded after the Holocaust, and has nothing to do with either the deaths in the Holocaust or the article under discussion. Conflating Jews with a state that doesn't necessarily represent them doesn't signal honest behavior on your part about your beliefs.
Lets be serious here: I figured the Jews would have learned that holocausts are bad... Except they run their own holocaust against Palestine.
Seems like collectively they didn't learn much at all from the last time atrocities were done against them.
But any valid complaints against them will result in claims of "antisemitism". That's par for the course when they can't defend their own atrocities - they'll just call you racists.
