View Full Version : France Criminalizes Debate
Tim Partlett
10-12-2006, 09:35 AM
It is now illegal in France to deny that Turkey carried out Genocide against the Armenians.
I'm not going to argue whether this actually happened or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6043730.stm
Isn't it illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust happened? Seems like the same thing (and I disagree with both the laws and the people who seem hell bent on denying basic history)
extarbags
10-12-2006, 09:41 AM
I'm not going to argue whether this actually happened or not.
Why not? You don't live in France. Zing!
Tim Partlett
10-12-2006, 10:48 AM
Isn't it illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust happened? Seems like the same thing (and I disagree with both the laws and the people who seem hell bent on denying basic history)
It is the same thing, and I don't agree with either law. However, I am British and it isn't illegal to deny the holocaust in the UK.
At least with the Holocaust you could argue the threat of a resurgent neo-Nazis as a reason for outlawing denial, but what is the threat to France from Turkish people denying that genocide took place?
Indierthanthou
10-12-2006, 11:11 AM
It seems like France and Turkey are in a battle of wits (or maybe just witlessness) over who can stifle freedom of expression faster.
Turkey criminalizes the mention of the genocide, putting writers and historians on trial. So what is France's response – criminalize the denial of the genocide. Brilliant!
(Yes, I know this is probably all about Turkey’s bid to join the EU – but it is still funny to think about the idiotic situation both countries have gotten themselves into)
Rimbo
10-12-2006, 12:35 PM
The important thing to remember is that these countries still have freedom of speech.
It's freedom after speech that's lacking...
Rimbo
10-12-2006, 12:35 PM
"Indierthanthou" is a great nickname, by the way
Johan123
10-12-2006, 12:46 PM
The important thing to remember is that these countries still have freedom of speech.
It's freedom after speech that's lacking...
ROFL...awesomely funny!
And a very concise commentary, too!
Unicorn McGriddle
10-12-2006, 01:17 PM
THEY'RE FEEDING EACH OTHER
GrinR
10-12-2006, 02:50 PM
When France banned smoking, that was the end of our love affair.
Jason McCullough
10-12-2006, 03:52 PM
It's probably more about pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment in France than some Turkey/France slapfight.
Chris Nahr
10-13-2006, 01:50 AM
Isn't it illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust happened?
More to the point, Holocaust denial is also illegal in France (and Belgium and some other countries). And France also has laws against any sort of perceived denigrations of specific groups, ethical or religious or otherwise. This is merely the next logical step.
Chris Nahr
10-13-2006, 02:00 AM
It's probably more about pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment in France than some Turkey/France slapfight.
I'm not aware that there are all that many Turks living in France. This is more likely about Turkey attempting to join the EU while maintaining a nationalist identitarian culture that's the polar opposite of the pluralist minority zoo favored by the EU.
The issue of the Armenian genocide did become a problem in Germany, by the way, when Turkish communities and the Turkish ambassador protested a memorial to the man who brought the news to Germany and tried to raise public interest in the tragedy. (IIRC his house of birth was to be turned into a small museum.)
The orthodox Turkish belief is that Turkey never did any wrong to anyone, and people who say otherwise are vile liars who hate Turkey. Imagine a country full of George W. Bushs and you get the idea.
Hetzer
10-13-2006, 02:49 AM
But there are many armenians in france....
Chris Nahr
10-13-2006, 03:36 AM
There are? Well, that's another good explanation I suppose...
edit: I guess this means the law is pandering to pro-immigrant sentiment!
But there are many armenians in france....
Yeah, so how could there have been a genocide?
Hetzer
10-13-2006, 07:50 AM
Yeah, so how could there have been a genocide?
Thats a real smart comment, congratulations you have won the price of dumbest comment on this thread....
Or why is there an israel, perhpas the holocaust is also untrue? oO
Thats a real smart comment, congratulations you have won the price of dumbest comment on this thread....
Or why is there an israel, perhpas the holocaust is also untrue? oO
You're German, right? Congratulations, you have won the prize for reinforcing the stereotype that Germans have no sense of humor.
Jason McCullough
10-13-2006, 09:11 AM
proposed by the Socialists and opposed by the government
That's what I get for scanning. You're probably right Chris.
Hetzer
10-13-2006, 12:48 PM
You're German, right? Congratulations, you have won the prize for reinforcing the stereotype that Germans have no sense of humor.
Yea making jokes over genozide isnt our kind of humor.
Tim Partlett
10-13-2006, 01:41 PM
More to the point, Holocaust denial is also illegal in France (and Belgium and some other countries). And France also has laws against any sort of perceived denigrations of specific groups, ethical or religious or otherwise. This is merely the next logical step.
Every country in the Western world has laws against denigration of ethnic and religious minorities. If it is the next logical step to make discussion on the Armenian genocide illegal, it is therefore a logical step for a government to declare everything it believes to be an act of genocide or ethnic cleansing, and then make it illegal for anyone to discuss that as well. I see a lot of countries in the West acting "illogically".
Lunch of Kong
10-13-2006, 02:12 PM
The orthodox Turkish belief is that Turkey never did any wrong to anyone, and people who say otherwise are vile liars who hate Turkey. Imagine a country full of George W. Bushs and you get the idea.
In Turkish history textbooks, it's the Armenians who slaughtered the Turks and dumped bodies into mass graves. I mean, shit, if it's in a textbook, it's gotta be true, right?
Turkish history texts make the myths perpetuated by American textbooks look like typos in comparison. It makes me sad.
Every country in the Western world has laws against denigration of ethnic and religious minorities.
Speak for yourself.
There was no Holocaust, the Jews made it up to get sympathy.<----COMPLETELY LEGAL FOR ME TO SAY
What are the odds Tim would care if this didn't involve people saying bad things about Muslims?
Hetzer
10-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Speak for yourself.
There was no Holocaust, the Jews made it up to get sympathy.<----COMPLETELY LEGAL FOR ME TO SAY
What are the odds Tim would care if this didn't involve people saying bad things about Muslims?
Yea but come here to germany or france and say it loud over a public place and then we will see what you could or couldnt say.
Hopefully for you there is even in your country no heavy jewish boxer next to you when you say it.
btw didnt your country have laws against hate speak?
bigdruid
10-13-2006, 03:57 PM
Let's be honest, though - the Holocaust is old news. The true tragedy is the lack of blood in German video games.
shift6
10-13-2006, 04:15 PM
Every country in the Western world has laws against denigration of ethnic and religious minorities.
To hopefully avoid communication problems like we have had in the past Tim, I'm only going to respond to this with: ?
Because maybe I'm just stupid and ignorant and have no reading comprehension and I'm missing something in that sentence.
Troy S Goodfellow
10-13-2006, 04:44 PM
btw didnt your country have laws against hate speak?
There are no laws against "hate speech" in the US. The only limits AFAIK on free speech are inciting violence, slander and libel.
The US does have "hate crime" legislation, but this is simply a multiplier on a crime that has already been committed. If you assault someone because they are a racial or ethnic target, then in some circumstances your sentence can be more serious.
Troy
Tim Partlett
10-13-2006, 05:15 PM
Speak for yourself.
There was no Holocaust, the Jews made it up to get sympathy.<----COMPLETELY LEGAL FOR ME TO SAY
Ben, I didn't say that all countries outlaw all forms of denigration of minorities. I said every Western country has laws against denigration of minorities. Even in America, which has the broadest protection of free speech in the world, there are hate crime laws which outlaw intimidation of minorities, and words which may incite violence against them. I guess you could argue that this isn't denigration, but it really wouldn't affect my point in any way, so why are you wasting your time?
What are the odds Tim would care if this didn't involve people saying bad things about Muslims?
My opinion on this subject is strong and clear (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=24434&page=2), and not based on the religion or race of the people being attacked, or on what I think of the person who is speaking. When this subject was brought up before on this forum, you were labeled a Nazi for defending David Irving's right to free speech.
Despite the fact that the subject related to Jews and Nazis (and not Muslims) and despite the fact that you take pleasure in being a persistent shit to me on these forums, I not only defended you, but the right of everyone, including Nazis, to say what they like, even if I don't like you, them or any of the words that they say.
While Ben's particular brand of hyperbole usually deserves a slapping down, I think it is very unfair to suggest he is anti-Semitic himself just because he defends their right to free speech. I think he pictures himself more of a Voltaire than a Goebbels, even though his verbal tactics can often appear more like the latter. I think he is basically right: I don't feel there is any need for such protections in a modern democratic society. Certainly from my perspective the Germans seem mature enough to be able to deal with free discussion on the subject, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would call bullshit on the likes of David Irving.
I notice you were quick to defend the Nazis there, but not the Muslims here. From that I could draw a similarly pathetic conclusion to yours, but I am pretty sure your indifference is because your mind is muddied by a miserable need to throw dung at me yet again. The chip on your shoulder must be an immense burden to bear.
I guess you could argue that this isn't denigration, but it really wouldn't affect my point in any way, so why are you wasting your time?
What an awesomely unassailable mindset. As Colbert has said, “I’m not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are.”
shift6
10-13-2006, 06:45 PM
The laws we have against denigration, incitement against, or intimidation of ethnicities/minorities also apply to denigration, incitement against, and intimidation of whitey. Because of my extremely underdeveloped mental faculties, I still don't get it.
There are no laws against denigration. Tim may be refering to the lack of protection for speech that is disrupting public order. There is a massive difference between not protecting the right to a particular brand of speech and actively criminalizing it. Merely saying bad things about a particular minority would never result in criminal charges for the speaker(if those things are "let's lynch the nigger" and some guy gets lynched, obviously a different story), though the police may remove him if they feel his speech could lead to some kind of incident.
Also, Tim, the other thing you said in that thread, curiously not quoted above:
That said, I don't think it is that big a deal. If the Germans want to continue protecting their society from one single idea, even if it is just as a symbolic gesture of remorse, I don't have a problem with that.
Strong and clear.
I do think this is a big deal, FWIW, European liberal authortarianism scares me almost as much as American conservative theocracy.
Unicorn McGriddle
10-13-2006, 08:59 PM
What an awesomely unassailable mindset. As Colbert has said, “I’m not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are.”
It wouldn't have an impact on his position because it's a semantic issue, not because he's a blank-eyed stormtrooper who serves his frenzied deathgod without fear or doubt. He concedes that though the meaning of the words he chose might not cover some common contingencies he can think of, he explicitly includes those instances in the set of possible circumstances his statement encompasses. That's different from ideological implacability -- and really, nobody was ever convinced of anything on the internet. Did you have a fantasy about brainwashing Partlett into peeing on accused traitors and waving a burning torch at this election season's Republican gubernatorial rallies? Sorry to spoil that.
Tim Partlett
10-14-2006, 03:32 AM
What an awesomely unassailable mindset. As Colbert has said, “I’m not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are.”
Bill, read my original point. My point was that it is not logical to upgrade anti-denigration laws to those which criminalize different opinions. I pointed out that as all (most, many, whatever) Western countries have anti-denigration laws, then that if that point held true they should logically all upgrade their anti-denigration laws to criminalize all dissenting opinions on any genocide that they deem to have happened, including Bosnia, Russia, Ireland, Australia and the US.
If I changed what I said to "most" Western countries instead of "all" it wouldn't affect my point. I will change my opinion in the face of fact, but I won't change it in the face of pendantry.
Edit: oh, I just noticed McGriddle already pointed that out :).
Tim Partlett
10-14-2006, 04:05 AM
Also, Tim, the other thing you said in that thread, curiously not quoted above:
Strong and clear.
It wasn't quoted because it was irrelevant, except for petty minded attempts to show hypocrisy that doesn't exist. I quoted the relevant text, and linked to the thread for full context. There was nothing "curious" about leaving that sentence out, nor the other text in the reply.
My opinion is strong and clear. It doesn't change because of the people affected. As you can see from my reply, I see past petty differences (your constant pissy replies) and my dislike of people's opinions (Nazi denial of holocaust) to keep my opinion on freedom of speech strong and clear.
I might not be willing to die to defend a Nazi's right to deny the holocaust in Germany, but I still support his right to do so.
What you see as a weakness in my belief, is actually me being able to be reasonable and understand why other people have different opinions to me.
shift6
10-14-2006, 10:22 AM
If I changed what I said to "most" Western countries instead of "all" it wouldn't affect my point. I will change my opinion in the face of fact, but I won't change it in the face of pendantry.
Pedantry is not a fallacy. In the past you've made a very clear, and sometimes very large, point about the difference between absolute-y words like "all" and "every" compared to generalizing words like "most" or "nearly" and so on. It seems reasonable to expect that people who have been conditioned by you to see these details so often would also see them in your posts.
Tim Partlett
10-14-2006, 10:48 AM
Pedantry isn't a fallacy, it's a nothing. A nothing waste of time that seeks to prove something, but doesn't prove or disprove anything. I would, in general, only point out such a difference between all and many, if it actually impacted the point being made. If it doesn't make a difference, like a spelling error, then it is just pedantry.
The point I was making was that it isn't a logical step to go from anti-denigration laws to laws which infringe people's right to debate a entire category of historical events. In making that point I assumed, mistakenly it seems now, that American hate crime laws also covered some form of anti-denigration of minorities.
I don't object to being corrected about a minor misunderstanding of the legal system of a country that I've never lived in, but the way that correction was presented, in a rude, accusatory way, made me defensive. There's a difference between informing and educating someone, and being a pedant.
I might not be willing to die to defend a Nazi's right to deny the holocaust in Germany, but I still support his right to do so.
If the Germans want to continue protecting their society from one single idea, even if it is just as a symbolic gesture of remorse, I don't have a problem with that.
Does not compute. And calling me out for pedantry? You're the Queen of Pedantria!
Tim Partlett
10-14-2006, 12:51 PM
It doesn't compute, because you are unable to hold an opinion while simultaneously understanding that someone else holds an opposite, but equally valid, opinion. My point in that quote was that Germany is not my country, it's just where I live, and if the people here want to make a special case about the Holocaust, because of their special history, that I'm not going to make a big deal about it, even if it goes against my beliefs.
And it's easy to say someone's a pedant, but I am calling you out for being a pedant with clear evidence of it on show for everyone to see.
It doesn't compute, because you are unable to hold an opinion while simultaneously understanding that someone else holds an opposite, but equally valid, opinion.
I don't have a problem with that
Strong and Clear.
As for pedantry, guess who wrote this:
In the sense of possibilities, reasonable means likely and unreasonable means extremely unlikely. A reasonable possibility is one that is likely, and an unreasonable possibility is one that is extremely unlikely. A not unreasonable possibility is not the same as a reasonable possibility, as it can still be unlikely, just not extremely unlikely. They can be the same, but they cover different sets, so they have subtle, but different senses.
Tim Partlett
10-14-2006, 02:35 PM
Ben, it isn't pedantry to give you an English lesson in the meaning of unreasonable, because you think that it can only mean the opposite of reasonable, and use that incorrect meaning to show that I am suggesting that a line of thought is actually reasonable, in spite of the fact that I clearly deny it. In that thread (http://quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=17239) it was you that was being pedantic.
I had to write out my opinions on the likely truth of the various opinions on the fate of the Italian agents in god damned percentages to show you what I actually thought, and STILL you continued with your pedantry, insisting that not unreasonable meant reasonable. Even if it was the definition you held was true, it was pure pedantry to continue to insist I meant something different to what I said, when I went to such great lengths to explain to you what I really thought.
unreasonable
adjective
1. Not governed by or predicated on reason: illogical, irrational, unreasoned. Idioms: out of bounds. See reason/unreason.
2. Beyond all reason: obscene, outrageous, preposterous, ridiculous, shocking, unconscionable. Idioms: out of bounds, out of sight. See usual/unusual.
If something is NOT beyond all reason, that DOESN'T mean that it reasonable.
To say something is "not unreasonable" is very common. You'd think, Ben, that there might be a reason for people using such a phrase, instead of saying that something is simply "reasonable".
Like you cannot understand the meaning of pedantry, you cannot understand the meaning of "unreasonable" and you cannot understand the meaning of "valid". You confuse valid with agreement, pedantry with detailed rebuttals, and reasonable with not unreasonable. You then blame me for your stupidity.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.