Yes, the murder of millions deserves special treatment.

Not if you believe it never happened.

A mention of a famous holocaust denier, David Irving, in a Bedlam thread reminded me of this thread and a question I have that relates to the discussion at hand;

Why are holocaust deniers treated as criminals?

Because in some countries they are. From Wiki:

"Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland. Slovakia made Holocaust denial a crime in late 2001 but repealed the legislation in May 2005. Spain decriminalized Holocaust denial in October 2007.[142] Italy rejected a draft Holocaust denial law proposing a prison sentence of up to four years in 2007, the Netherlands rejected a draft law proposing a maximum sentence of one year in 2006 and before this the United Kingdom twice rejected a Holocaust denial law. Denmark and Sweden also have rejected Holocaust denial legislation."

Not only Jews; Gypsies, cripples, Communists, homosexuals, anyone who disagreed with the regime.

Yes, the murder of millions deserves special treatment.

Right. Lest we forget.

Lest we forget. Fair enough to put in place mechanisms, such as education, that ensure everyone is aware that an immeasurably tragic, incomprehensibly horrendous series of events took place. To ensure that history can never be repeated.

So it should be.

But a crime, punishable by years of prison, for uttering words? Words that most people would classify as delusional. Delusional words. A crazy man talking that nobody takes seriously.

There seems to be a chip on the collective Jewish shoulder that has somehow managed to insinuate itself globally throughout the Western non-Jewish population, particularly amongst right-wing politics.

The accusation of "Anti-semite" carries heavier implications and nastier connotations than an accusation of "racist" or "sexist"

An anti-Semite, who is nonetheless a holocaust acknowledger, is still considered to be a worse sort of bigot than a bigot of any other colour of bigotry. Why is this?

I suggest, to the OP and the question "Why are Jews Hated So Much", (assuming that "hate" is a general and very broad term that includes simple resentment or distaste**) that people, consciously or subconsciously, know when inequity and special treatment happens as a norm. They resent it.

(**. When I say, "I HATE brussel sprouts", I don't actually mean I want to eradicate them from the face of the earth...."hate" in it's broad, general sense.)

Not only Jews; Gypsies, cripples, Communists, homosexuals, anyone who disagreed with the regime.

Yes, the murder of millions deserves special treatment.

Right. Lest we forget.

Lest we forget. Fair enough to put in place mechanisms, such as education, that ensure everyone is aware that an immeasurably tragic, incomprehensibly horrendous series of events took place. To ensure that history can never be repeated.

So it should be.

But a crime, punishable by years of prison, for uttering words? Words that most people would classify as delusional. Delusional words. A crazy man talking that nobody takes seriously.

There seems to be a chip on the collective Jewish shoulder that has somehow managed to insinuate itself globally throughout the Western non-Jewish population, particularly amongst right-wing politics.

The accusation of "Anti-semite" carries heavier implications and nastier connotations than an accusation of "racist" or "sexist"

An anti-Semite, who is nonetheless a holocaust acknowledger, is still considered to be a worse sort of bigot than a bigot of any other colour of bigotry. Why is this?

I suggest, to the OP and the question "Why are Jews Hated So Much", (assuming that "hate" is a general and very broad term that includes simple resentment or distaste**) that people, consciously or subconsciously, know when inequity and special treatment happens as a norm. They resent it.

(**. When I say, "I HATE brussel sprouts", I don't actually mean I want to eradicate them from the face of the earth...."hate" in it's broad, general sense.)

Excuse me but it's not as if 'anti-Semitism' is a recent phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

To perhaps make the thread a bit more Thailand-centric, why not extend the argument to those of Chinese descent who, after all, have been described as the "Jews of Asia"?

Who wields the economic and political clout in Thailand? It is not the ethnic Thai: they're the ones who work on the farms and do the labouring jobs.

Scouse.

I'm a product of WW2. My father married in his uniform, the war was over but he'd just returned from Europe where he personally witnessed the results of the holocaust. Denying it insults him and every man and woman, and my mother spent the war in uniform, who stopped it at great personal sacrifice.

The only direction I can see Harcourt coming from, other than argument for argument's sake, is concern for the freedom of speech issue.

Inciting a crime is a punishable by law in most countries but if the offender is delusional, it's not. A court would find he's not responsible for his actions, as a holocaust denier would be found not guilty if his sanity was called into question.

It's a question of law, not "lest we forget". The Germans have seen fit to make a law against holocaust denial, not to create a memorial but to try to prevent it happening again.

It's easy to sneer at the old soldiers lining up at the memorials on Anzac Day and scoff at their determination that their dead companions will not be forgotten but I think that setting safeguards to protect what they fought for is important.

Not only Jews; Gypsies, cripples, Communists, homosexuals, anyone who disagreed with the regime.

Yes, the murder of millions deserves special treatment.

Right. Lest we forget.

Lest we forget. Fair enough to put in place mechanisms, such as education, that ensure everyone is aware that an immeasurably tragic, incomprehensibly horrendous series of events took place. To ensure that history can never be repeated.

So it should be.

But a crime, punishable by years of prison, for uttering words? Words that most people would classify as delusional. Delusional words. A crazy man talking that nobody takes seriously.

There seems to be a chip on the collective Jewish shoulder that has somehow managed to insinuate itself globally throughout the Western non-Jewish population, particularly amongst right-wing politics.

The accusation of "Anti-semite" carries heavier implications and nastier connotations than an accusation of "racist" or "sexist"

An anti-Semite, who is nonetheless a holocaust acknowledger, is still considered to be a worse sort of bigot than a bigot of any other colour of bigotry. Why is this?

I suggest, to the OP and the question "Why are Jews Hated So Much", (assuming that "hate" is a general and very broad term that includes simple resentment or distaste**) that people, consciously or subconsciously, know when inequity and special treatment happens as a norm. They resent it.

(**. When I say, "I HATE brussel sprouts", I don't actually mean I want to eradicate them from the face of the earth...."hate" in it's broad, general sense.)

Excuse me but it's not as if 'anti-Semitism' is a recent phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

You're excused. The age of the "phenomenon" of anti-Semitism has what implications to my question about why is it that anti-Semitism is a greater crime than other bigotries?

.........

The only direction I can see Harcourt coming from, other than argument for argument's sake, is concern for the freedom of speech issue.

Inciting a crime is a punishable by law in most countries but if the offender is delusional, it's not. A court would find he's not responsible for his actions, as a holocaust denier would be found not guilty if his sanity was called into question.

It's a question of law, not "lest we forget". The Germans have seen fit to make a law against holocaust denial, not to create a memorial but to try to prevent it happening again.

It's easy to sneer at the old soldiers lining up at the memorials on Anzac Day and scoff at their determination that their dead companions will not be forgotten but I think that setting safeguards to protect what they fought for is important.

Sorry, I used the Anzac slogan simply because the words "Lest we forget" are totally apt when considering the holocaust. I didn't mean to bring Anzacs into this.

"Lest we forget" IS tantamount to educating to ensure no repeat, the most desirable outcome.

I am not arguing for argument's sake. I truly do not comprehend why one terrific tragedy in history is given special place in society AND IN LAW, while countless other tragedies do not get even a mention in history books, let alone protection under law.

It is this inequity that I suggest may be the seed of an underlying feeling of resentment, in answer to the thread's topic question.

Even just the mention by me of, and some questions about, holocaust denial, has resulted in restrained responses.....it's such a touchy subject; Ask yourself why so? Especially within the context of this thread.

You bring up the freedom of speech issue which I had not considered here because the subject of holocaust denial was only brought up in relation to the OP's question.....and I think that is another subject altogether, and ties in with a thread about the BNP's invitation to speak on a BBC program....freedom of speech vs restraint from offending.

Where am I coming from? To deny a fact of history is delusional. Crazy! It's not a crime to be crazy....unless that craziness involves holocaust denial.....Special treatment....possible resentment.

OK, a search of the net under holocaust laws.

Germany

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

No mention of the J word there.

§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Nor there.

Luxembourg

...anyone who has contested, minimised, justified or denied the existence of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in the statutes of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or the existence of a genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1985. A complaint must be lodged by the person against whom the offence was committed (victim or association) in order for proceedings to be brought, Article 450 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997

Poland

Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Dz.U. 1998 nr 155 poz. 1016)

Article 55

He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

Article 1

This Act shall govern:

1. the registration, collection, access, management and use of the documents of the organs of state security created and collected between 22 July 1944 and 31 December 1989, and the documents of the organs of security of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning:

i) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:

- Nazi crimes,

- communist crimes,

- other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

ii) other politically motivated repressive measures committed by functionaries of Polish prosecution bodies or the judiciary or persons acting upon their orders, and disclosed in the content of the rulings given pursuant to the Act of 23 February 1991 on the Acknowledgement as Null and Void Decisions Delivered on Persons Repressed for Activities for the Benefit of the Independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 1993 No. 34, item 149, of 1995 No. 36, item 159, No. 28, item 143, and of 1998 No. 97, item 604),

So it seems that the Jews aren't getting special treatment, anyone who falls into the preceding catergories of being offended against is protected by law in those countries.... and others I haven't mentioned.

OK, a search of the net under holocaust laws.

Germany

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

No mention of the J word there.

§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Nor there.

Luxembourg

...anyone who has contested, minimised, justified or denied the existence of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in the statutes of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or the existence of a genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1985. A complaint must be lodged by the person against whom the offence was committed (victim or association) in order for proceedings to be brought, Article 450 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997

Poland

Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Dz.U. 1998 nr 155 poz. 1016)

Article 55

He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

Article 1

This Act shall govern:

1. the registration, collection, access, management and use of the documents of the organs of state security created and collected between 22 July 1944 and 31 December 1989, and the documents of the organs of security of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning:

i) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:

- Nazi crimes,

- communist crimes,

- other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

ii) other politically motivated repressive measures committed by functionaries of Polish prosecution bodies or the judiciary or persons acting upon their orders, and disclosed in the content of the rulings given pursuant to the Act of 23 February 1991 on the Acknowledgement as Null and Void Decisions Delivered on Persons Repressed for Activities for the Benefit of the Independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 1993 No. 34, item 149, of 1995 No. 36, item 159, No. 28, item 143, and of 1998 No. 97, item 604),

So it seems that the Jews aren't getting special treatment, anyone who falls into the preceding catergories of being offended against is protected by law in those countries.... and others I haven't mentioned.

All well and good....but, firstly, it's not the facts, it's the perception that directs attitude of the masses.

Secondly, from Endure's Wiki extraction, ""Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries.....".

Explicitly sometimes. Implicitly.....plainly in all the statutes you've quoted....The "J word" is not needed, but certainly implied.

Thirdly, do you not consider it significant the very fact that the results of your search were produced from that "H" keyword?

Your whole argument seems to be that you're wrong, but you're right, because you know you're right.

Holocaust is a word that predates WW2 by a millennium or two. I used it in the search engine because it would give me a selection of information, of which some would have to be about the mass murder of civilians by the Nazi regime. Other links that appeared were about religious sacrifice.

Your whole argument seems to be that you're wrong, but you're right, because you know you're right.

Actually, scea. I think Harcourt's rationale is quite sound. Far from arguing it seems to me he's simply attempting to elucidate his point from different angles to make his point clearer to those who don't see it.

I myself feel it's more than a bit ludicrous to consider certain thoughts a crime. If for no other reason than the fact that it is simply impossible for anyone to regulate the thoughts of others. Imposing punishments merely pushes the thoughts underground where those who do not wish to deal with particular ideas can feel happy pretending whatever idea they object to has been obliterated from the mass psyche. That approach is, in my humble opinion, not a valid one as it attempts to cover up issues rather than dealing with them at their core.

Prejudice cannot be legislated away, neither can it be extinguished through punishment. In my humble opinion only a newfound awareness of who we truly are could ever produce a retreat, and a lasting one, from such ideas, for people would then have a true understanding that to transgress against another in any way, shape or form is the same as transgressing against ones self.

I would also bring up another point which has not yet been raised in this thread regarding prejudice, and anti-semitism in particular. It concerns beliefs. the power of beliefs, and the way in which beliefs play themselves out quite practically in the real world. If Judaism professes the idea of a people being "chosen by God" then by inference everyone else must be among the crowd of "not chosen." If being one of the chosen implies "better than" then you have automatically created prejudice. If a group of people believe they are better than others would it be any wonder that they would ultimately leave themselves open to create experience for themselves in which those who are relegated to be members of the "less than" crowd express their dissatisfaction of their "given" position and their innate knowing that all people are in fact created equal?

Again, once the greater masses finally become aware of their true nature, the understanding that not only are all peoples created equal but also there exists a connection between us all in such a way that to harm another is to harm ones self, only then will all prejudice become less practiced in the world. Long ago the true definition of humbleness was given me - while no one is better than me I am no better than anyone else.

BTW, I though Vic's post was most excellent. I hope I don't appear to be prejudiced against the other good posters.

Your whole argument seems to be that you're wrong, but you're right, because you know you're right.

Holocaust is a word that predates WW2 by a millennium or two. I used it in the search engine because it would give me a selection of information, of which some would have to be about the mass murder of civilians by the Nazi regime. Other links that appeared were about religious sacrifice.

I don't understand your first sentence....but never mind.

I am aware that holocaust is a word that predates WW2..... that's irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that you found those statutes using holocaust as a keyword belies your point that "the J word is not used anywhere in them"...it is plain that the statutes you've quoted were crafted especially to protect against anti-semitism and holocaust denial, albeit they protect against general bigotry, desecration, or defamation.

I'm sorry if I'm hitting a raw nerve with you Sceadugenga. My intent is not to stir. In fact, if you read all of my words in all of my posts, you can not with certainty tell what my personal beliefs are on this matter.

My stance is that there are questions.

Asking those questions does not place me on any particular side of the fence.

I felt that it was important not to take a side when posing the questions because there was a danger that the answers would address one side or the other, rather than the questions themselves.

The main question I am asking is "Why is anti-Semitism are worse bigotry than other bigotries?", and I used the criminality of holocaust denial as an example.

You will also notice that I have raised the idea that holocaust denial does not neccessitate anti-Semitism, but does infer delusion.

I'm not cutting and pasting snippets from the last two posts, I find that as big a waste of time as becoming repetitive in argument here, something I swore I'd never do again.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Harcourt says what he refers to, as do the media, as Holocaust Denial laws are discriminatory and have no right to be.

My point... one more time, is that where I admit that these laws were probably not willingly adopted by the countries passing them, they do not specifically cover the Jews and the murder of them during WW2.

Therefore they are not discriminatory. They are not laws saying that the murder of Jews is worse than the murder of Communists. They protect the memory of these people equally.

The damage to freedom of speech here is not relevant to the original argument; which was that the laws are discriminatory in favor of Jews, because they were brought about with Jews in mind. I say they receive no extra protection under the law.

If you want to continue the argument, do so without saying the laws "imply" this. That is the reason we have lawyers, so the word of the law is followed, not any assumed implication.

I won't continue the argument as it's not close to my heart, and I see I'm pushing shit uphill anyway....no offense, that's a salute to your strength of conviction.

I will say though, off topic and in general, IMHO, the job of lawyers is to interpret the law, often in any way that they can that serves their purpose.

Legislators craft the law. Very few laws can cover all possible scenarios, and judges know this. As a consequence, many lawyers cite "the spirit of the law" as valid and realistic opposition to the "word of law".

I think the failure of Orthodox Jews to assimilate has something to do with it. By assimilate I don't mean taking on Euro customs. I mean staying in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods rather than blending into other neighborhoods where Euros-Christians and Ortho-Jews could interact as neighbors and both could realize they have more in common as human beings than they have differences. Interaction brings about understanding and mutual respect. Remaining separate from others allows ignorance to evolve into rumors and myths by both groups. When things get a bit rocky; bad weather, a bad crop, cholera outbreak, misfortune in general, blame it on the different ones amongst us. It doesn't make sense but then superstition doesn't make sense either.

There needs to be a common watering hole where all walks of life interact and gain understanding of one another. Public schooling is a good vehicle.

Some of the verses in the Bible don't help matters.

Deuteronomy 14:21

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-21.htm

I understand animal protein was expensive and preserving methods were crude. Therefore, eating rotted meat was not uncommon and it may have been tempting to eat roadkill. It brings to mind the Five Second Rule about dropped food. Anyways, the bible is full of contradictions. On the one hand it's OK to sell carcass meat to strangers, while on the other hand, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." .

It's been years since I've had a conversation on this subject. But I recall reading passages from the Talmud which describe examples where Gentiles should be afforded the same rights and consideration under Jewish law and custom. Given the times back when the code was written, I'd say Jewish people were very civilized. Extending rights and charity to those outside their group, I'd say that's very civilized.

Oh, why does antisemitism still persist? I don't know. People are stupid.