all 12 comments

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not only denying but also condoning and even downplaying as well? I wonder what their legal definition for downplaying is.

[–]disidentHRNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We have already entered a post-legal era long time ago. Every legal definition that comes up is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

In practice, downplaying will most likely mean making a joke or saying they had an orchestra and a swimming pool there (i.e. saying it wasn't as bad as the textbooks say).

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am curious about cases like that of Jean Le Pen. To my knowledge, he lost his position in the National Front because of a statement he made about the Holocaust - he did not deny it, but he claimed that it was only a small, minor part of World War 2, or something along those lines. Theoretically, I think such a statement could also be considered in violation of this new Canadian law.

[–]disidentHRNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, legal system deploys on and off contextualization whenever it's convenient. They always ignore the context of the dissenting side and just make up new context (as we have seen with all these Charlottesville lawsuits pretty much).

These holocaust-related lawsuits are especially absurd and quite frankly offensive to the sane mind. For example check out IHR v. Mermelstein case where they accepted Mel Mermelstein's personal testimony as the judicial notice and ignored everything that the IHR has said.

The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted his own testimony as proof but it was ignored. He then sued IHR in the United States and the case was subsequently settled for $50,000, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. The court declared the statement that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" was a fact.

Source

This is the first case I saw where plaintiff's testimony is considered indisputable, but it's certainly not the only one lol

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is astonishing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Schrodinger's Liberal: How do you defend Jews while also importing a ton of Muslims at the same time?

They aren't afraid of minecraft.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/imam-sermon-montreal-mosque-1.4037397

https://www.bnaibrith.ca/bc-imam-prays-for-the-annihilation-of-criminal-plundering-jews-2/

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As a fascist and national socialist that advocates a strong ethnic government possessing the power to root out and remove subversive elements I'm strangely conflicted. If a group of shady foreign elements attempted to defame my history and landmarks I'd want to make laws to root him out. I'd want laws to protect MY interpretations of history. An objective, true, and accurate history that inspires me and my posterity is the foundation of a healthy nation.

I guess the big disagreement I have with these global Jew demons is this: My history is truth and there's is a patchwork of lies, manufactured multi generational victimhood and psychological manipulation of slaves. Subjective truth is the biggest falsehood perpetrated in the history of mankind. They are forcing falsehoods on the populace for the sole purpose of maintaining power. Like a rat in a grain silo it is a power they didn't harvest and don't deserve. A power they cheated and stole to posses. Their purpose is not nationhood and truth.

Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945

Technically you could still be a revisionist with this definition. I have no doubt they will still go after revisionists though.

[–]Fonched 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1533/35/1533357770880.png Along these lines, what are your thoughts on this, Saidit?

Some will also point out that in a multitude of European nations where this is illegal, denial of communist crimes and other world atrocities are too; therefore Holocaust laws are not part of a conspiracy.

[–]disidentHRNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bunch of crying out in pain as he strikes you.

First point is talmudic nonsense, what's the point of questioning something if you're not allowed to come to different conclusion?

Second point is false, it probably refers to that map we all see on Wikipedia. That map is only showing countries where Holocaust denial is banned EXPLICITLY. You can still be prosecuted for denying it in many countries which are not colored red on the map. He says so in the continuation, but he is engaging in talmudic fashion yet again, like equating Holocaust denial and displaying nazi salutes with bestiality and pedophilia (freudian slip?), whereas the correct parallel would be asking why is Armenian genocide denial protected by ECHR and why Holocaust denial isn't.

He also just asserts that Holocaust denial is hate speech towards jews. Many of Holocaust deniers became deniers because they wanted to debunk Holocaust deniers, how would that come out of hatred for the jews? The fact that the truth is perceived by jews as hatred is solely their problem.

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From my first reading I thought that he didn't draw a line between "questioning" and "denial"; I would say their answers need to be compatible with the mainstream narrative in order for the educator to not be punished. I do know for certain just going out and saying "it didn't happen" without any evidence will get you slapped, but I don't know about how scholars on both sides of the debate manage.

I have also not seen anything about Canada's new law extending outside of the Holocaust. Some social networks a few years back banned it a while back in quick succession but I had not heard that any other crimes against humanity fell under this rule as well.

I would like to know how one who was refuting deniers eventually became a revisionist, if any examples exist.

[–]Nombre27[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He says so in the continuation, but he is engaging in talmudic fashion yet again, like equating Holocaust denial and displaying nazi salutes with bestiality and pedophilia (freudian slip?)

Kind of interesting that whoever wrote that also put holocaust denial as a punishable offense in the same category as calling Muhammad a pedophile or bestiality. Criticizing Islam isn't hate speech and by putting holocaust denial in that same category, this person has unexpectedly given permission for the very critique that they wish to prevent.

x2 on the Talmudic "high verbal IQ" misdirection (gish galloping) that is such a common amongst the tribe when it comes to persuasion. That author had no problem pointing out how targeting vulnerable or minority populations with inciteful rhetoric can be bad (this logic applies to inciting hateful rhetoric to person or group, not just special minorities), but has nothing to say as to what is actually going on in White countries when it comes to which group it is okay to regularly slander with impunity.

That image is like a leftwing meme that uses too much words in order to sound smart, with a goal being misdirection, i.e. if something is said enough times or loud enough then that must make it true.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945

It should mean the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of Christians of Asia Minor by the donme cryptojew "Young Turks" from 1913 to 1922.