Voices
in
Japan

poll

Should Holocaust denial be a crime?

78 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Should the freedom to speak one's mind be a crime?

No matter how sickening or repulsive the words or idea are they must never be censored.

To silence anyone because you don't like what they are saying is oppressive.

17 ( +27 / -10 )

No, freedom of speech is more important than historical correctness or the feelings of the survivors. On the other hand, hate speech should be a crime and typically both go hand in hand...

5 ( +8 / -3 )

It should be a crime because people can be very excessive in speaking one's mind. You can speak your mind but don't complain if you get in trouble. The worst outcome about allowing freedom of speech is when the person in high position say hate speech because they can and act like he's making a joke. Making the light of Auschwitz Concentration Camp is pretty despicable because it has nothing to do with you.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Yes, absolutely, not only the holocaust but to keep it in context, the Nanjing massacre and comfort women. It's all very well to believe in the ideological freedom of speech but unfortunately to maintain a peaceful society there should be laws about making certain harmful claims. We don't allow swearing in public so why should we allow other harmful expressions?

-21 ( +6 / -27 )

If you remove the right to question the official version of the truth then the truth is dead.

I know that the Holocaust actually happened, but I started off knowing nothing about it. I was educated about it, but it just all seemed too horrible, too inhuman. I read more and more about it over the years, and discovered many interesting things, some of which contradicted the earlier, simplified, version that I learned at school. The school version was the "official" version, the one set down in the government-mandated textbooks. It turns out that a lot of it was actually simplified to the point where it was no longer true.

Of course the right to question is already dead in America and Japan. The new secrecy laws make it illegal to even pursue knowledge about something that is deemed secret, without even the transparency of allowing people to know what IS secret. In effect this is a great Holocaust, the holocaust of truth, burnt on the altar of fear and paranoia.

19 ( +20 / -3 )

For political figures and anyone representing the nation going into a press conference and the like, yes.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No. The idea is well intentioned, but ultimately counter-productive.

People who see a conspiracy in the holocaust tend to see the existence of such laws as vindication of their theories. It's become a rallying point.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

We don't allow swearing in public so why should we allow other harmful expressions?

We don't? Who is we, and where can you not swear in public?

People who see a conspiracy in the holocaust tend to see the existence of such laws as vindication of their theories. It's become a rallying point.

Let them rally. Laws against denial send a very clear message that society is against it, and that it will not be tolerated. Anyone who uses it as a rallying point is an anti-social force, and should rightly be shunned, if not prosecuted.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If you suppress the holocaust deniers you give them credibility. Let them speak out openly and be seen for the fools that they are. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Freedom of speech? In today's world with the US monitoring everyone and their dog?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If you suppress the holocaust deniers you give them credibility.

No, allowing them to speak gives them credibility, as it sends the message that their speech is appropriate, for if it weren't, it wouldn't be allowed.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

FrungyFEB. 24, 2014 - 08:48AM JST

If you remove the right to question the official version of the truth then the truth is dead.

I know that the Holocaust actually happened, but I started off knowing nothing about it. I was educated about it, but it just all seemed too horrible, too inhuman. I read more and more about it over the years, and discovered many interesting things, some of which contradicted the earlier, simplified, version that I learned at school. The school version was the "official" version, the one set down in the government-mandated textbooks. It turns out that a lot of it was actually simplified to the point where it was no longer true.

Of course the right to question is already dead in America and Japan. The new secrecy laws make it illegal to even pursue knowledge about something that is deemed secret, without even the transparency of allowing people to know what IS secret. In effect this is a great Holocaust, the holocaust of truth, burnt on the altar of fear and paranoia.

JT - give that poster a job! Some of the best prose i have read here.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

What really bugs me is that people always focus on the same incidents. We rarely hear about genocide committed by countries other than Germany and Japan. For example, genocide of Armenians and Greeks in Turkey, slaughter of Poles by the Soviets, mass-killings in Indonesia in the 60s, etc, etc, etc. Don't these matter? It's a terrible thing to deny massacres but it's just as bad to use them to push agenda. We should be focussing on moving on rather than harbouring grudges.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Deborah Lipstadt, author of "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory" was pessimistic about preserving accounts in the future, given the financial resources, energy and virulence of the deniers. She nevertheless strongly opposes censorship in any form. Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" makes some interesting points on the techniques used by the deniers. Finally, for a study in contrasts between Germany and Japan on the teaching and atonement for past wartime atrocities, I'd recommend Ian Buruma's "Wages of Guilt."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No, absolutely not, and I say that as someone who lost family in the Holocaust. I deeply cherish freedom of expression even if that speech is repugnant.

Bad ideas and worthless opinions should not be buried, they should be exposed to the public and their holders better educated.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The best way to deal with a crime is not to deny it, but to admit it fully, take responsibility, do what you can to make up the damage and move on. If you do that, people will forget. If you don't, they won't.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Truth doesn't need the protection of the law. Only lies do.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

We rarely hear about genocide committed by countries other than Germany and Japan.

Genocide of whom by the Japanese? Please tell.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

No. Let people show their stupidity for the whole world to see.

Of course the right to question is already dead in America and Japan.

Holocaust denial is not illegal in either of these countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Onsen

Genocide of whom by the Japanese? Please tell.

The meaning of your question is not clear.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Freedom of speech also includes the right to express ideas which the majority find unpleasant. Let the holocaust deniers put their arguments forward and let's take a look at the evidence they present. The same goes for those trying to deny other atrocities. In my experience, the majority of those who deny such events tend to be semi-literate, barking mad, blindly nationalistic or just plain sinister ( a good example of all four was the atrocious Tamogami essay ) but some may contain a grain of truth which can contribute. I don't want to be treated like a child and told what I am not allowed to read or hear with regards to history.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It's heading off topic, so please don't bother answering it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JimizoFeb. 24, 2014 - 12:50PM JST Freedom of speech also includes the right to express ideas which the majority find unpleasant. Let the holocaust deniers put their arguments forward and let's take a look at the evidence they present.

The very heart of the scientific process, that any idea must be subjected to skepticism and proven... not once, but again and again. In this way the issue is talked about, and the truth is not forgotten. Imagine if doubting the holocaust was banned, discussions of the holocaust would only happen in classrooms and then only in a strictly "teacher speaks, students listen" mode, because any questioning could be viewed as doubting. It couldn't be discussed in public, because some misheard snippet of a conversation could get you arrested. In short it would be the worst possible thing for the people who suffered and died in the holocaust; their memory would be relegated to history textbooks and the lesson would quickly be forgotten.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A denial should mark you as an extremist unfit for public office.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Freedom of speech. Doesn't mean it should be a crime to deny the Holocaust, but it will most certainly show the world what kind of person you are.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well holocaust denial is already a crime in Germany and many other European countries. There are deniers who are in prison or have been in prison. So I guess the post question is being directed at those who live in Japan? I think the holocaust will be of less interest to the Japanese or at least less interest than the other issues like comfort women or the rape of Nanking.

I think having a law against holocaust does not prevent anyone from questioning the official version of events, just prevents you from denying the holocaust ever happened. Hate speech is also a crime in many European countries but not here in Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If we allow Holocaust deniers the right to disseminate their interpretation of history as fact under the guise of free speech, then do we not allow the history of the Holocaust to become nothing more than an opinion?

I gather that people who argue against limiting freedom of speech, even for Holocaust deniers, are also inadvertantly demonstrating their view that the history of the Holocaust is an opinion that one has. Not fact.

What difference does it make for one to sell poison as milk to children and for another to sell lies as truth? Do we not punish the former for their despicable deeds? Should we not do the same for the latter?

I see that some have argued that those who deny the Holocaust would be ostracized from their communities, and that that alone would be punishment for their lies. That our societies have chosen right by ignoring such hate. But do we not ostracize fellons from our communities, by denying their freedoms and taking their liberties? Is stealing a loaf of bread a greater crime than denying truth?

We should not justify those that deny the truth with our most noble of freedoms. They should be treated as fraudsters and imposters, as swindlers and liars, and as CRIMINALS!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Most laws in society are created to better the conditions of people within that society. We have rules that everyone must follow and consequences if we do not. Not everyone has to agree with those rules however if you want to remain a part of that society you must follow the rules even if you do not agree with them. Freedom of speech is one thing but denying the truth entirely is different. I'm sure some people dont agree with homosexual rights and color integration even to this day. However if you outright call someone a *and *** there will be reprocautions as our society has evolved to give everyone the chance to feel safe and secure. Denying the Holocaust is like denying homosexuality or race in the eyes of the people who had family members go through that horrific experience. Same thing applies to Japan denying the mass rape of Nanking and the use of comfort women.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As I wrote above, I do not think it is wise to make denial of the Holocaust illegal. However, it is important to realize that Holocaust denial is for the most part, if not wholly, hate speech. A quick look at the agendas of those that deny the Holocaust happened quickly reveals their true targets. So, while it is important to promote free speech, it is also important to be cautious of those that claim they only want the freedom to speak. If you are against hate speech, then you are against Holocaust denial. As proof of this, look at how often the expression 'the Jews' come up in their discussions and notice it is always something negative.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@stealth_gaijin

If we allow Holocaust deniers the right to disseminate their interpretation of history as fact under the guise of free speech, then do we not allow the history of the Holocaust to become nothing more than an opinion?

Not at all, I think, any more than denying any proven fact renders it an opinion. For a relevant example, look at the war Creationists are waging against proven scientific fact in the US. Fundamental, well-established scientific principles like the efficacy of radiocarbon dating, geological processes, biological evolution - facts not in dispute by rational people - are under attack by the Creationists because it does not fit in with their dogma.

It's willful ignorance (harmful, even, as thousands if not millions of people are denying fundamental facts about the universe), but of course holding such opinions and expressing them publicly is allowed. Does that render these established facts as opinion? Of course not.

Similarly, there's really no danger of the facts of the Holocaust as being considered mere opinion. Facts are facts, they do not change if you don't believe in them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For a country that wants to be Nr. Something in this world only an economics degree is simply not enough. Certain standards apply all around. So if you talk wild in a pub or so, well let it be. But holding a public office and offending your neighbours with your ignorance isnt really sound policy. So the holocaust question should be a red flag in everyones public servants entry examination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm interested in which historical episodes it should be illegal to deny or question. The holocaust? The rape of Nanking? The massacre of Armenians by the Turkish? Those committed by Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot? Would it depend in whether that particular massacre or atrocity is a sensitive issue in your particular culture? How about those which occurred centuries or even millennia ago? The most important question is who would you trust to decide which historical events are okay to seriously question and who would judge if a particular writer has overstepped the mark? As I stated before, the denials I've read tend to be written by the stupid, the insane, the nationalistic or the sinister but I'm grown up enough and I hope fair-minded enough to make my own decisions. You won't stop stupidity, racism and nationalism by censorship.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You won't stop stupidity, racism and nationalism by censorship.

This is true. You cannot outlaw stupidity.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If you deny the Holocaust existed you're a nutjob, not a criminal.

Interesting opinion piece from Bloomberg: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-23/is-abe-encouraging-japan-s-nut-jobs-.html?cmpid=yhoo.view

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nope. Freedom of speech is more important. anyway, today's accpted truth/proven fact has often been found to be false tomorrow.....

5 ( +5 / -0 )

FrungyFEB. 24, 2014 - 08:48AM JST I know that the Holocaust actually happened, but I started off knowing nothing about it. I was educated about it, but it just all seemed too horrible, too inhuman. I read more and more about it over the years, and discovered many interesting things, some of which contradicted the earlier, simplified, version that I learned at school. The school version was the "official" version, the one set down in the government-mandated textbooks. It turns out that a lot of it was actually simplified to the point where it was no longer true.

I'm interested to know what about the holocaust you found to be 'no longer true'!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If it's by ignorant, old fart cronies at the top (I think you know who I'm referring to), then yes. They have a certain level responsibility that differs greatly from the general public. They knew this when they signed up for the job!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"a lot of it was actually simplified to the point where it was no longer true."

As igloobuyer asks, tell us the parts of the official version of the Holocaust that aren't true.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Speech should be free. And I think that it should be carried out to verify technical and academic.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Absolutely not. Mankind has struggled hard to reach the present state. Freedom of speech is an inalienable principle.

In fact, I won't necessarily say a denier is somehow morally defective, and find it more appalling that people are so fast to pass judgment. The fact of the matter is, most people became a Holocaust, Nanking or Comfort women supporter based on a very rudimentary lesson in class or on Discovery Channel. It is not necessarily hard to find some countervailing evidence that would exceed the value of the enormously basic version spooned out to the mundane.

So, unless you are at least a professional historian, your personal deck is as a rule probably not thick enough to justify calling a denier morally defective. He might be wrong, but it is likely he did more research than you to reach his conclusion.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Depends on whether the country was occupied by Nazi Germany or not - you'll find that it is crime in many countries that were occupied (+ Germany itself) but not in those that weren't (e.g. the UK) - context is everything.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The moment someone denies you the right to speak is the moment you find something to fight.

We must never silence anyone just because we don't like what they say. Logic and reason will always outweigh insanity and the illogical.

The way to stop the irrational is not by censoring them, that just gives them a rallying cry. The way one stops them dead in their tracks is by providing proof and facts.

The right to speak openly and freely is our right as humans, only those that hate freedom would ever fight against that right.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It should absolutely not be a crime. It should be met with the disdain that it deserves, but if you start to criminalize speech, where do you stop? The countries which have started on that road are on a slippery slope.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

See I can't agree. If you say 'you have the right to speak about anything', it gives credence to what is being said. It says that their opinion has validity. And it's not like the right to free speech is unconditional - try talking about a bomb in an airport, or try telling someone you are going to kill them, society has determined these to be things that are not acceptable. I think denying something that clearly happened spreads the seed, and opens up history to be whitewashed. And if society doesn't say 'no, that's not appropriate', it sends the message that what the people are saying has validity. And that is what people can rally behind. Look at the whitewashing going on in Japan right now - the more people that hear the lies, the more people that believe the lies. This is a disservice to those who died.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The question is framed ambiguously - illegal in Japan, in England, China? As stated above, it's already illegal in Germany. Should it remain illegal in Germany? What if the number of deniers snowballed or they got more and more sympathetic press, what then I wonder?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is certainly stupid. Like saying the Roman Empire was a hoax.

But, really, no-one can go back in time, no-one can actually prove yesterday ever existed. It is already gone. Any video you may have is something that only exists as part of today's universe. In a metaphysical sense.

So, for that reason and others, I cannot say I think it is a crime, no. But stupid, yes.

I would like to add however, I have no problem with various types of bullying and discrimination being a crime, and holocaust-denying "used" in that way as being a part of the crime. But you do have to be careful w/ that kind of thing, can be too vague.

Surprised at that number of "yes" votes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is the same as asking, "Should stupidity be a crime?"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Holocaust denying is already illegal, which makes this question a bit silly. Denying the Nanking massacre and comfort women should have been made illegal years ago - now it's probably too late. People l will believe what they hear when that's what they want to hear no matter whether it's true or not. Decide on what is mutually accepted by society (referendum?) then stick to it unless convincing evidence disputes it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Then why not make religion a crime?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The major trouble is that even if you support Holocaust denying being illegal, that its far too often called Holocaust denial if you so much as question the official numbers even without actually denying that the Holocaust happened. Its one of the scariest effects of taking away the freedom of speech in seemingly harmless ways like this. People quickly find a way to trap and jail people they just don't like with spin doctoring. This includes laws against hate speech.

Christopher Hitchens says nay. I say nay.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I answered "no". Just because someone denies an accepted historical fact shouldn't make them a criminal. If it did, then all the Republicans in the U.S. would be criminals for denying global warming is occurring. ;-) (I know, I know... "Off topic")

The day that your government makes it a crime if you think a certain way is the day your country takes a HUGE step towards George Orwell's "1984".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

We must allow all viewpoints without repercussions. With the condition of not harming people. Truth eventually prevails, denials tend to be minimal.

The danger is if the denials increase in numbers. The Holocaust did happen. It was horrific. It targeted any and every non "ideal German". Not just Jews, it was Slavic's as a race also. It was homosexuals, criminals, Gypsies, political opposition and many more.

What was sad for me when I visited a former camp in Poland that the high school aged kids were laughing and seemed to enjoy the time there. I couldn't then or now understand what they were thinking.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No, certainly not. Whilst it is an abhorrent and utterly misguided notion (like creationism, or intelligent design) the act of denying the Holocaust is not in itself a 'hate-crime' as it does not incite people to partake in illegal acts, in and of itself. Freedom to express one's ideas is crucial in a free society, however awful or just plain in opposition to the facts they are. That does not mean that anything at all should free to be broadcast to other people; we should ot be free to incite murder, nor rape, nor genocide.... these things should not be protected under freedom of speech as they do actual harm.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't know why this poll is coming up now. Is it because of the amateurish but vile destruction of Anne Frank's Diary books in public libraries? The Holocaust was the systematic and ruthless murder of 6 million humans. It has been well documented and proven to have actually occurred. To deny these facts in some countries is criminal as it is in fact falsifying and distorting historical facts whether done because of total ignorance or sheer hatred. Both reasons are of great concern. Freedom of speech? I am all for it. Perpetuating lies about mass murders causing suffering to many more millions than the 6 million who were exterminated is a different story and I laud German legislation which is meant to express repentance and prevent a mass slaughter on this scale to ever happen again. Even freedom of speech needs to conform to some standards. Apparently standards some cannot conform to.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Governments must be watched. Once they start outlawing certain types of discussions, you can bet something very suspicious is going on.

America put its own citizens in concentration camps just because their race was Japanese ... current the Supreme Court judge Scalia said, "you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again." Why wasn't Scalia arrested and charged with a crime for saying this?

And Israel continues to deny that Turkey committed an Armenian Holocaust ... isn't that rather hypocritical?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, CIA Director.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, it should not be a crime. Good news from Auschwitz.

According to official documents in the French Republic (institute for the Examination of War‑criminals) the number that died in Auschwitz was: 8,000,000 According to the French daily newspaper "Le Monde" (20 April, 1978): 5,000,000 According to the memorial plaque on the gas‑chamber monument at Auschwitz‑Birkenau (later removed in 1990 by the Polish Government): 4,000,000 According to the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, the last commandant of Auschwitz. G.V. interrogation record and written statement [under extreme torture by his Jewish Interrogators] before his "suicide": 3,000,000 According to a statement by Yeduha Bauer, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem: 1,600,000 According to "La Monde" (1 September 1989): 1,433,000 According to Prof. Raul Hilberg (Professor for Holocaust Research, and author of the book, "The Annihilation of European Jewry," 2nd. ed. 1988: 1,250,000 According to Polish historians, G.V. DPA ‑ Report of July 1990 and corresponding public announcements: 1,100,000 According to Gerald Reitlinger, author of "Die Endlbsun": 850,000 In the autumn of 1989 the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev opened Soviet archives, and the public saw for the first time, the complete register of deaths at Auschwitz ‑ which speaks as a key document of 74,000 dead.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If ignorance and stupidity were crimes...you couldn't build prisons fast enough to contain that population.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@presto345 Please read VicMOsaka's post above. If the truth one uncovers deviates from the "official version", then why should expressing what one has discovered be considered a crime? You yourself just said you believe in Freedom of Speech in your post. That does only apply one way? That would be a double standard.

I'm sure you know that Hitler came to power in 1933, and WWII started in late 1939.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk

2 ( +2 / -0 )

According to official documents in the French Republic (institute for the Examination of War‑criminals) the number that died in Auschwitz was: 8,000,000

Check your sources. That's one of the numbers promoted for the entire holocaust, not just at one concentration camp that didn't open until 1943. Auschwitz is estimated to have been the location of death for around 1.5 million people.

The holocaust is generally used to describe the German extermination plan (dubbed "The Final Solution" by the Nazis) aimed at Jews, though you can make a good case that all the other groups that were systematically targeted for death simply because of who they were should be included. In the ENTIRE "Final Solution" that spanned the whole of the German occupied territory, just under 6,000,000 Jews are estimated to have died. If you are so inclined, add in 2 - 3 million Soviet POWs, around 2 million ethnic Poles, 1 million or so Romani, and lesser amounts of other groups to round out Germany's penchant for genocide. Anyone trying to deny what Germany did is obviously one of those fruitcakes who also believes that all the U.S. moon landings were faked on a movie set.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Are we so afraid of an irrational minority that we have to enact laws to stifle them? Just so we'll feel safe in our grasp of a historical truth? Do we believe our knowledge can be hijacked, intellectually mugged, threatened to the point that we, ourselves, will abandon it?

Do we genuinely worry there won't be enough rational, correct, truthful voices, or available fact and evidence to effectively counter such crazy hollerings? Is the possibility the entire world won't remember so imminent and dangerous, we have to do something like this?

If the answer isn't "no" to any and all of the above; then there's a way bigger problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It absolutely should, as should denial of the Nanking massacre and sexual slavery. Denying these things is not "speaking one's mind", as people like JoeBiggs would have you think. It's flat out denial of proven fact.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

smith,

While I understand your sentiment, where would that end? Should we make the denying someone being guilty of something illegal?

As repugnant as these kinds of denial are, it is better to offer people the freedom to speak and let society judge them.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The problem is not the denial part in itself but the way it stifles out any discussion regarding the matter. If i for instance said that after looking at it was not 6 million Jews killed but 4.5 million i would be put in the same category as those who say there were no gas chambers and no death camps.

War was fought to allow free speech, however wrong and offensive that may be to some. Laws should be made for the benefit of all not for a small part who have a large amount of influence. Any piece of history should be allowed to be discussed, believed or rejected. Laws banning a small amount of idiots spouting crap can be twisted and used against the masses as more things are banned.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

slumdog: "As repugnant as these kinds of denial are, it is better to offer people the freedom to speak and let society judge them."

While I'm not 100% against what you said, the problem is that the people you hear say these kind of things are usually people of power and who have sway, and use their 'opinion' for politics. You can see that pretty much anywhere hate speech exists, be it Neo-Nazis or Iran calling the Holocaust a lie and propaganda, or Abe and NHK. The latter are LITERALLY using their personal points of view not only to change legislation and rescind apologies (censorship of others' opinions, literally), but are making other laws to stifle any attempts to speak out against it (new 'secrecy' law).

What's more, society isn't really free to judge said people when they can be imprisoned for doing so... if they haven't bought into all the brainwashing to begin with.

So as you yourself asked -- where does it end? Goes both ways.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@SmithinJapan:

Rather than criminalizing opinions, we should just apply the universal axiom to them and move on with our lives:

Opinions are like butt holes - everyone has one and most of them stink.
2 ( +2 / -0 )

Muslim leaders understand that EU and the West of having double standards, arguing that it protects established Christian religions and outlaws anti-Semitism while doing nothing to defend Muslims against defamation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

While I'm not 100% against what you said, the problem is that the people you hear say these kind of things are usually people of power and who have sway, and use their 'opinion' for politics.

Actually, most of what I have read and hear people say along these lines have been regular nameless people on the internet or fringe nuts. What I often find scary is the lack of reaction in discussions on the part of others if the offender happens to be talking about Israel or Jews in general in the case of the Holocaust or Chinese or Koreans in general in the case of Japanese involvment in WWII. It almost seems like people are willing to ignore the extremist views as long as they agree with one part of the discussion. I think the extremists like NHK's Momii should be ignored full stop whether they are talking about what happened in WWII or whether they are talking about what the weather will be like tomorrow. I am just not convinced that making denial illegal is the answer, although I do love the idea of the benefits of these kinds of people being made to shut up.

Muslim leaders understand that EU and the West of having double standards, arguing that it protects established Christian religions and outlaws anti-Semitism while doing nothing to defend Muslims against defamation.

I believe you are mistaken and that there have been cases in the EU brought up against people for defaming Muslims as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Seeing as it is illegal in Germany, then yes, so should it be.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I put it in that class of laws that are "not in public forums" style. If you want to hold this position in your own home, fine. I think you are someone with a horrifically poor grip of history and - most likely - some manner of Nazi-sympathiser, but fine; the government can't control what you think. But if you go out onto the street and start shouting it out, unsolicited, then yes - I think that qualifies as hate crime.

Essentially this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred#United_Kingdom but expanded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But if you go out onto the street and start shouting it out, unsolicited, then yes - I think that qualifies as hate crime.

Essentially this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred#United_Kingdom but expanded.

Ehh... that entry in Wiki specifically says that Holocaust denial is NOT covered by that law. You might as well quote a jaywalking law "but expanded".

In my opinion (see my post just above on "opinions"), publicly saying you don't believe the government's take on a particular historical event isn't a "hate crime", nor should it EVER be. In the case of Holocaust Denial, wouldn't such a "hate crime" law be promoting hate against a political group (the Nazis)? The irony is too much! And let's not get into where does this all stop? Holocaust denial today, climate change tomorrow ("Hate of scientists"), not believing what the government tells you the day after ("Hate of the government")??? Once the precedent has been set that publicly disputing generally accepted knowledge equates to "hate", all bets are off on what they decide to next make a "hate crime". You better start agreeing with everyone or risk being jailed for promoting "hate".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, because being blindingly stupid is not a crime. The actual Holocaust, now there's a crime!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In Germany? Japan? The US?

I think Holocaust denial --Japan Edition, should be illegal in Japan. Y'know, all the right wing crap denying Nanjing, sex slaves, and Japan's "advancement" into China. All that crap should be illegal.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

History should not be denied institutionally. What people say is another story.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The moment your right to speak is denied is the moment you stand up and fight.

Silence is the ally of Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism, silence allows these to take root and stretch their claws further into a state.

If you love your rights then you should stand up and not allow them to be taken from you. Only the enemies of freedom would ever say, "Denying these things is not "speaking one's mind".

Being a fool isn't a crime, being a fool just means you just don't get it.

It is great to have the right to speak out now isn't!

Imagine if you couldn't speak out, what would you opinion be then? Oh wait that's right, you couldn't express that opinion.

Speak your mind, express yourself and people will either agree with it or disagree, that is the right of the people.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Now what if I say, " comfort women deniers should be a crime?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Who gets to decide which version of which historical events are legal to support? If I'm not making that decision, then no, it should not be law.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II'

Whether someone says a stupid or foolish thing shouldn't be the crime; punishing them for saying stupid or foolish things should be.

In context, the denier claims factual knowledge different from volumes of scientific and Nazi documents.

If saying something stupid or foolish were a crime, half the politicians and nearly all the media should be in the dock.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites