Should denying The Shoah and The Nakba be illegal?

In several nations it is illegal to public deny Jewish Holocaust aka "The Shoah".

Is this good, and should it also be illegal to deny the Israeli ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of native Arabs in 1948/1949 aka The Nakba?

 

Yes, Shoah denial should be made illegal.

The Nakba was a heroic deed on the part of the Zionist heroes and should be celebrated.

You need another option in your poll:
"Denying the Shoah should be a crime, and it should be a crime to not celebrate the Nakba"

 

in some circumstance, Shoah and Nakba denial should be a crime.

but i favor freedom of speech so the speech that should be banned has to be very extreme such as justifying these war crimes and calling for them to be repeated

 

It is imperative to have a full range of poll options so as to differentiate between the criminality of the Shoah and the celebratory nature of the Nakba.

 

I don't think it should be illegal to believe something didn't happen. Its stupid, ignorant and fantasic, but shouldn't be illegal.

 

Posters are welcome to discuss here

http://www.politicalforum.com/zionist-agenda/336026-evidence-holocaust-didnt-happen-9.html

 

Also review here

http://www.politicalforum.com/zionist-agenda/317262-evidence-holocaust-19.html

 

denying the Shoah, Nakba, Holodomor, Armenian Genocide, should be illegal when you accuse the victims of lying and fraud. cause that is slander.

or when you advocate for the crime to happen again or say the crime was a good thing, as that is advocating racist mass-violence

 

But it isn't it slander if you were to accuse the Germans of this with no evidence?

 

good thing the evidence of the Holocaust is overwhelming.

and please don't even consider trying to turn this into a debate about the validity of the Holocaust. Thanks in advance,.

 

So why couldn't you present any on the threads I linked? I think the validity of the Holocaust is key here. Truth is the key issue in defamation.

 

This thread is not about the validity of the Holocaust, only about whether denying the Holocaust is a crime. If you wish to debate the evidence for the Holocaust, please feel free to do so...but in an appropriate thread and not this one.

thanks

 

But why should "denying" "the Holocaust" be a crime if you can present no evidence for it? The point is utterly moot.

 

denying the Holocaust should be a crime when you say things like "it was a good thing and it should happen again in my city", as this is advocating mass violence

 

That doesn't make any sense. If one "denies" "the Holocaust" how can one call for it happen "again"?

 

No, it just ends up getting confused. Facts are facts. If some deluded nutter wants to make out neither happened then they're welcome to make complete fools of themselves.

 

what if they call he surviving victims "liars"?

 

Many of the "surviving victims" are proven liars. Should it be illegal to point that out?

 

Holocaust denial should be illegal when you attack the Jews or attack Holocaust survivors.

 

Define "attack".

Also please refer to "alleged Holocaust survivors". You are begging the question.

 

I think they should be sued. It must be a form of defamation. But I don't see the criminal law as being required.

 

If they can prove their story then of course they are not liars. Why do you just assume the story is true? This is the height of irrationality. Should everybody be sued for calling out Herman "It was real in my mind" Rosenblat? Should we all pretend he was telling the truth?

 

Some years ago I went to an exhibition of Anne Frank memorabilia in Toronto. I'd been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam quite some years before that but I thought I'd go along to the exhibition. An elderly lady was at one of the exhibits. She showed my girlfriend (now my wife) and myself some of the exhibits. On her arm was a tattoo. Numbers. The Nazis had tattooed here as a little girl when she was sent to a camp. She didn't tell us a lot of what she went through, but she didn't have to. Now, should someone call her a liar?

I think it's generally accepted, outside of the nutterati, that the Shoah happened.

 

No, they should check out her story. Maybe she is a liar. Maybe she just got a tattoo by the Germans but wasn't "gassed" etc. How on Earth would I know.

And we segue effortlessly into the combined logical fallacies.

 

The evidence is overwhelming. What is fallacious is to deny its existence.

As for the numbers on the woman's arm. She was of the right age. She was from Europe. She was Jewish. There is evidence of other European Jews presenting with the same markings on their arms. There is documentary evidence of it. Putting that together it makes sense to accept her word.