[flagged]
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Please point to relevant legislation.
A key quote:
> The amendment would "prohibit the communication of statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust."
This is widely believed to be unconstitutional in Canada, and it’s not hard to imagine the chilling effect, e.g. is asking an honest question in class considered “private”? I suspect not. Is a question about 4-5 vs 6 million considered “downplaying”? I don’t think most reasonable people would think so, but I don’t think it’s reasonable people we should worry about.
I think many will argue that asking questions and promoting holocaust denial are very different things, and I think they are, but the lines are very blurry.
It’s increasingly popular on social media to immediately label people as the most extreme version of “other/out” for any form of behavior that doesn’t demonstrate complete commitment to the in group. An ambiguous law about holocaust denial implemented under the current social climate seems like a recipe for disaster.
I think holocaust denial and antisemitism are abhorrent, obviously. But it is this fact that seems to empower legislation that threatens freedoms. Various online safety bills seem to belong in a similar category.
I don't believe that was ever the case. Holocaust denial is such a pervasive and murderous conspiracy theory that any free and open society cannot tolerate. But denying the Holocaust is not the same as studying it.
Free and open societies don't decide at all what they tolerate. That's the entire point. If certain ideas are banned, you are not free.
I am not a philosopher and I have no idea how to reason about situations where individual rights for individuals and groups of individuals clash.
That's a great question. In short, the 99% of people should tolerate the 1%. They don't need to choose to associate with them, but don't take action against them to silence them.
> I am not a philosopher and I have no idea how to reason about situations where individual rights for individuals and groups of individuals clash.
I think this quote is probably appropriate:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." - John Stuart Mill
In that case you should understand that no one is obligated to hear you whining about topics, specially those you're not even willing to discuss.
I'm sure that we don't need a debate to agree that genocide is something that's not acceptable. Do you disagree?
This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. Denying a genocide happened, however repugnant it may be, is not the same thing as genocide. Pretending it is in order to borrow the weight of genocide is a common tactic used to try to silence arguments without addressing them.
What's really curious is that you leapt from a discussion of the Holocaust to racist policies of the former South African government.
The State of Israel is in practice an apartheid state - specifically it treats citizens differently depending on whether they're Jews or not. Inside Israel, as I understand it, this is not a controversial observation, simply one side sees apartheid as a desirable situation and the other does not. Which we might observe is exactly how it was in South Africa...
Lets be serious here: I figured the Jews would have learned that holocausts are bad... Except they run their own holocaust against Palestine.
Seems like collectively they didn't learn much at all from the last time atrocities were done against them.
But any valid complaints against them will result in claims of "antisemitism". That's par for the course when they can't defend their own atrocities - they'll just call you racists.