you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the 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.