Holocaust Denial Criminalisation | Prof Charles Asher Small | Opposition 

You do NOT protect democratic principals by legally duct-taping inconvenient mouths. Free speech is SACROSANCT. You have the right to condemn hateful speech but never ever to obliterate it.

Truth fears no investigation. Only lies require silence.

Fr. Seraphim Rose Discusses the Jewish Question "It is interesting here to note that, of all the groups in the world, the Jews are the ones who are strongest in this department, because it is not possible to mention the Jews in even a slightly critical tone without having a representative of the Anti-Defamation League come to visit you. That is why Orthodox publishers are very careful not to say anything about the Jews because they know that someone will come around and begin checking up on them, and if there is something they don’t like, they’ll start conducting a campaign of slanders and arousing public opinion and all sorts of things against you...."

Why do you need to shut others up, If you speak the truth theres no need to enforce draconian laws to protect it. Whatever happened to freedom of speech.

I always agree with people speaking at an institution that dominates all spheres of UK politics.

Its not hate speech to speak the truth.

How do we find out who won the debates?

antisemitism = anti-Jewish bigotry, and it does not has to be the same as holocaust denial. this guy lacks basic reasoning

An excellent book (worth paying the postage for) is entitled: "And The Show Went On, Cultural Life in Nazi-Occupied Paris," by Alan Riding.

How does it hold true and logically valid that hating Jews was the first ever form of religious hate that created all these various hates. I think before Christianity VS Jews religious hate was not the first ever religious hate. Has this guy ever read a book on ancient history and sociology. It is clear religious difference or any other reason for hating another group of particular people for that matter had existed before the Anti-Semitism or any concept of even a notion of Jewry existed and will continue to exist well after the Anti-Semitism and Jews all but will have vanished and forgotten, unless humans all of a sudden go through some sort of phenomenal genetic mutations all of a sudden soon. Sorry, by definition Anti-Semitism alone is a kind of, and, a consequence of perceived outsider group hate; not the cause of it.

This guy rambled a lot and never actually tackled why it's against freedom of speech

off topic

Is there a debate on this or just a call?

4:42 bookmark

i see all the nob cunning linguists performing their masterful oratorical skills and debating, wearing their suits befitting the penguin class, how very entertaining.

First they came for the deniers, I was not a denier and I didn't care.................

Questioning anything and arriving at different conclusions to anyone else or even everyone else, is not hate speech. The mere fact that this is being proposed on this issue and indeed already enforced in some countries points to problems with the official narrative. In fact, in my opinion, the approach taken against those that dare to question, on this issue and many others can only be described in part as 'hate speech', which has become a blunt instrument that is being wielded by the powerful.

Ridiculous.

Wow. I would have hated to follow Lipstadt in any case, but this dude came with nothing at all. He might as well have stood up at the podium naked from the waste up and gone, "bumbley blah, boom shish, ubby bubby doo". How embarrassing.

well said!

All these guys so far had very good points. First of all, denying the holocaust feels cruel to those who survived it because it is the perpetuation of abuse in the form of gaslighting. The fact that you can experience something so horrid for someone to go "no, this didn't happen to you" is truly atrocious and speaks a lot on the person's character that's actually expressing these things. You could argue that they do it precisely because they don't believe it happened and that's why they do it so carelessly and unfeeling for other people's pain, but if for a moment they considered they are wrong while stating these things, then that's the part that speaks to their character negatively: only a truly horrible person would take that chance. Having said this, denying the holocaust would be the same as saying that any other crime that involves abuse didn't happen. Like when a victim testifies they were sexually assaulted and you have people that weren't there daring to state it didn't happen, acting like the abuser themselves. Although horrible, on that premise alone, speech shouldn't be suppressed. If you criminalize someone denying the holocaust, it's a slippery slope into criminalizing anybody doubting any traumatic experience that's ever happened to another person. Why wouldn't it be? However, when you are talking about something that involves a historical pattern and oftentimes ends with the mass murder of people due to the perpetuation of those ideas, it's a lot more complex than the aforementioned comparison. The professor had a very valid point when he said "it starts with Jews, but it never ends with Jews". That's where the issue truly lies and why I see some people are quick to want to shut it down before history repeats itself. It is an understandable and legitimate fear, but I must say I agree with Harrison Edmonds when he says that suppressing that speech would work as a form of validation to those views. I think it's counter-productive. But not only is it counter-productive as it is not attacking the true source of why holocaust denial even exists, despite all of what's happened and how much evidence there is of it. The only way to combat this is to make sure people are educated. Not just on the subject at hand, but academically educated on all fronts. With the decline of the education system, you can usually see these ideologies spreading, as these ill-intentioned people take advantage of those who are socially and economically disadvantaged to perpetuate it. It happens time and time again. This is a matter of the current quality of education. For as long as high-quality education is a privilege and not a requirement for society to function as a whole towards its advancement, we will always have issues with the uneducated being taken advantage of to serve these wicked purposes. So what needs to be tackled is education as a whole to make sure the masses are intellectualized enough to not fall victim to these predatorial ideologues, not speech. They will never understand that the reason why you want to suppress speech is that the consequence of their speech is too heinous to even want to entertain a genocide of that magnitude ever taking place again. They will understand it as "they shut it down because we were right, we were asking too many questions" and thus you validate their points indirectly because they are not clear-minded enough to understand why you did it in the first place. Suppressing speech sure is easier, but it doesn't fix the problem because you are not focusing on the cause of it. When you are attacking speech you are trying to put a band-aid over a gunshot wound. The gunshot wound is the quality of education for everyone, no matter their social status. Holocaust denial is just a symptom of underpaid educators, overworked educators, an outdated education system, lack of funding for education, lack of equal academic opportunity for all people, etc. If you fix that you fix the problem of bigotry, holocaust denial, all of it. At 8:21 he even says it "Holocaust denial is not mainstream at Oxford University, but it is elsewhere" -- and that just validates my point! Gee I wonder why highly educated people with privileged socio-economic backgrounds don't subscribe to this lol

What are this guy talking about. it is not about antisemitism. is about the holocaust denial!