• Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Will they criminalise denial of the Gaza genocide, you know, the one that is currently underway?

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not yet. The ICJ is still examining the mountain of evidence. It will probably take a few more years.

      I dont think we coined the term Holocaust until after the Germans lost the war. I imagine it’ll be the same with Gaza. History needs to happen and be written first.

      • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 days ago

        None of this is accurate even if history started on Oct 7.

        You are blatantly lying.

        Jewish human rights groups and human rights groups all over the world as well as genocide scholars all over the world are calling what is happening a genocide. I’ll put more weight on their conclusions than someone who has nine bullet points of Zionist hasbara.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Probably not all of them. We dont know of every one. Some were prehistory.

      I’m not a Finn, but I dont think they were involved in many Holocausts except one?

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Laws restricting speech are a disgrace. Unbelievable that they actually seem to be passing it.

  • TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    On one hand, this feels very “thoughtcrime”-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I’m curious to see how this plays out.

      • rekabis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral or legal standard, but as a social contract:

        If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it.

        In other words: the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.

        Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.

      • BurningRiver@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        I feel like as long as the banned speech is extremely specifically defined, I don’t care if they look like martyrs. “The holocaust never happened” is easily defined as holocaust denial, and it’s easy to enforce.

        The problems arrive when a law is passed with an ambiguous, poorly defined meaning like “hate speech”. Hate speech can really mean anything someone else doesn’t like.