What's new

What are the double standards of Holocaust denial and Islamophobia?

"...It’s difficult to understand how some governments classify it as hate speech to deny the Holocaust while at the same time claiming that it’s simply “freedom of speech”...by mocking the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), burning Qurans, and other such objectively hateful actions. ""

It's not particularly difficult to understand - not when the issues are addressed without distortion. Europe - not America which has larger numbers of Jews - has mostly banned Holocaust Denial. Countries like France, Luxembourg, Germany, etc. banned it to assure themselves that the shadow of Nazism would not return: the deniers, after all, are refuting evidence that led to the courtroom convictions of war criminals and collaborators who oppressed their countries under the Nazis. So it has nothing to do with sparing the feelings of Jews like myself who lost family in the Holocaust.

Speech that hurts or challenges other people's feelings or convictions is protected; speech that denies the facts that convicted war criminals is not.

So, where does "Islamophobia" enter into all this?
 
It's not particularly difficult to understand - not when the issues are addressed without distortion. Europe - not America which has larger numbers of Jews - has mostly banned Holocaust Denial. Countries like France, Luxembourg, Germany, etc. banned it to assure themselves that the shadow of Nazism would not return: the deniers, after all, are refuting evidence that led to the courtroom convictions of war criminals and collaborators who oppressed their countries under the Nazis. So it has nothing to do with sparing the feelings of Jews like myself who lost family in the Holocaust.

Speech that hurts or challenges other people's feelings or convictions is protected; speech that denies the facts that convicted war criminals is not.
Although I’m not here to deny the holocaust or make conflation with islamophobia, both of which are logically flawed.

Why would you single out the Holocaust as a historical event on which to ban dissent? Why not any other genocide in history? Would you for example support banning speech that says that black slavery before 1863 was a hoax, or a good thing etc.? You being American, the historical context argument should be comparable.

I don’t get why this is made an exception, IMO free speech should allow for Holocaust denial.
 
Speech that hurts or challenges other people's feelings or convictions is protected; speech that denies the facts that convicted war criminals is not.

So it's a crime to be just wrong? Isn't this a stretch and a tad inconsistent? Does free speech mean just being correct, or the right to say anything you want no matter how inane or stupid?

I always found the freedom of speech practiced in Europe to be a nebulous concept, applied unevenly depending on where you are in Europe.

At least the US is consistent on this score, you can criticize the Holocaust we no legal repercussions since it's protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. You can also mock religion (not just Islam).
 
Cover1618830350-0.jpg



What are the double standards of Holocaust denial and Islamophobia?
Those who sincerely believe in Western democratic principles should praise Khan for calling out those governments
Andrew Korybko April 19, 2021

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan called on those Western governments that have outlawed negative comments about the Holocaust (a euphemism for Holocaust denial, which his illegal in some states) to also ban Islamophobia and especially any actions that abuse the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This was a bold statement to make since the Holocaust is a hyper-sensitive issue in Western societies, one which some have compellingly claimed is treated very differently than similar historical tragedies.

There’s no doubt that anti-Semitism unfortunately exists and is a form of bigotry that discriminates against people on the basis of their ethnicity and/or religion (sometimes one and the same with respect to Jewish people, other times different when it comes to converts and their descendants). Those who question details about the Holocaust, including what some have argued was the geopolitical exploitation of this genocidal tragedy to justify creating the “State of Israel”, are controversially regarded as anti-Semities by some.

Nevertheless, there shouldn’t be any doubt that Nazi Germany carried out a genocide of Europe’s Jews. This is proven not only by Adolf Hitler openly talking about such plans in his manifesto (Mein Kampf) published over a decade before he started World War II, but also by historical documents, testimonies, and other such evidence. Even so, the Nazis also genocided many other people as well, especially Slavs such as the Poles, Russians, and Serbs who are regrettably almost always left out of discussions about Hitler’s genocidal crimes.

Some members of those victimised nations as well as others who are aware of their historical tragedies feel that it’s unfair that only the anti-Jewish genocide received almost universal recognition as a crime against humanity while the others are mostly ignored. The special treatment afforded to the Holocaust by those countries that ban its denial while imposing no punishments for denying Nazi Germany’s other genocides is therefore already controversial within Europe itself.

Supporters of these double standards usually justify them on the basis that a much larger percentage of Europe’s Jewish population was exterminated by the Nazis than any of the other victimised people. On the other hand, opponents retort that there shouldn’t be any “hierarchy of victimhood” since all victims of genocide are equal and the offense that they feel whenever others deny their similar tragedies should also be banned if governments are already banning such denial whenever it’s directed towards one class of victims.

Respectfully debating these valid points without any intent to discriminate against others or imply a sense of superiority towards their fellow victims should be encouraged in those countries that embrace Western democratic principles, not discouraged or worse due to so-called “political correctness”. In any case, it’s up to each society to decide how to deal with this very sensitive issue, but it’s important for there not to be any double standards lest they risk discrediting that state’s socio-political system.

With this in mind, it can also be said that those countries that ban Holocaust denial shouldn’t have double standards towards similarly offensive actions that disrespect the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Just like some can argue that outright Holocaust denial is everyone’s “right” in a democracy due to the principle of so-called “free speech”, so too can some argue the same about Islamophobic actions such as the ones that were just generally described. To be clear, this isn’t an endorsement of that thinking, merely an observation.

The problem is when double standards are applied towards hate speech, which is what some regard both Holocaust denial and Islamophobia as being. It’s difficult to understand how some governments classify it as hate speech to deny the Holocaust while at the same time claiming that it’s simply “freedom of speech” to deny Nazi Germany’s genocide against other people such as the Slavs, not to mention openly being Islamophobic by mocking the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), burning Qurans, and other such objectively hateful actions.

What Khan just did was challenge those Western governments that impose such double standards towards Holocaust denial and Islamophobia, which is something that very few leaders across the world are brave enough to do. They fear being smeared as anti-Semitic just for discussing this, even though the very principle upon which the Western democratic system rests should in theory provide everyone the right to respectfully talk about this and other sensitive issues so long as one’s intent is to promote justice for all who are oppressed.

Whether he meant to or not, Khan also implied something else that’s very important as well, and that’s the double standards that countries espousing Western democracy usually apply towards those states with different socio-political systems. Quite often, that first category of states aggressively demands that the second one implement certain policies aimed at what the former regard as promoting equality in line with their socio-political visions that sometimes differ from the targeted countries’.
In fact, these demands are even at times backed up by sanctions, whether threatened or actually promulgated. To the contrary, Khan isn’t making any aggressive demands of those countries espousing Western democracy but is simply calling them out for their double standards and asking that they rectify them as soon as possible in order to also protect Muslims’ religious sensitivities just like some of them presently protect Jews’. After all, everyone should be treated equally, especially according to Western democratic principles.

If one country wants to ban Holocaust denial in order to protect Jews’ sensitivities, then they should also ban the denial of Nazi Germany’s other genocides as well as Islamophobia in order to protect those victims’ sensitivities as well. Not doing so, and especially declining to officially explain the reason why (let alone some activists’ political harassment campaigns against those who publicly raise this legitimate question), sends the message that some victims are more important than others and that not all of them are equal.

That arguably goes against the principle of equality that’s supposed to be the bedrock of Western democracies. It discredits that socio-political system and exposes the hypocrisy of their representatives’ demands that other countries promulgate certain policies ostensibly aimed at improving equality in their own societies. For this reason, those who sincerely believe in Western democratic principles should praise Khan for calling out those governments and encouraging them to finally live by the same principles that they demand of others.

the earth is a very big place, and has now more than 8 billion people on it divided into hundreds of ancient tribes. it turns out that all of these tribes honor the memory and lessons of some past atrocities, but usually choose to ignore the atrocities that some other tribes had to endure.

many muslims today openly support strikes on Israelis and jews.

here in the west, and especially in France, freedom of speech is considered more important than not offending the beliefs of some group of citizens.

in many muslim countries, kids grow up knowing it's illegal and punishable to offend your Prophet Mohammed.

i believe mr Khan is not being quite realistic when he expects all humans on Earth to respect the cultural sensitivities of all other tribes on Earth.

instead, i believe it is up to the people burdened with those sensitivities, to realize that not everyone on Earth is going to, or has to, share their feelings about such a topic.

but.. if you want to pursue this, then turn it into a friendly but also perpetual media campaign.
and realize that you might be able to punish with lethal force a blasphemer in some countries, in other countries at most you can expect a fine to be levied.
 
banned it to assure themselves that the shadow of Nazism would not return
If -

  • the justification is based on the premise that banning denial will prevent rise of Nazism then it is false. How is banning going to prevent rise of Nazism? You just ban Nazism. Period.
  • the justification is based on he fact that denial hurts the sentiments of Jewish people then why can't that protection also be extended to Islamaphobia.
And finally why is Anti-Semetism the most evil thing on earth but Islamaphobia is cool?
 
the earth is a very big place, and has now more than 8 billion people on it divided into hundreds of ancient tribes. it turns out that all of these tribes honor the memory and lessons of some past atrocities, but usually choose to ignore the atrocities that some other tribes had to endure.

many muslims today openly support strikes on Israelis and jews.

here in the west, and especially in France, freedom of speech is considered more important than not offending the beliefs of some group of citizens.

in many muslim countries, kids grow up knowing it's illegal and punishable to offend your Prophet Mohammed.

i believe mr Khan is not being quite realistic when he expects all humans on Earth to respect the cultural sensitivities of all other tribes on Earth.

instead, i believe it is up to the people burdened with those sensitivities, to realize that not everyone on Earth is going to, or has to, share their feelings about such a topic.

but.. if you want to pursue this, then turn it into a friendly but also perpetual media campaign.
and realize that you might be able to punish with lethal force a blasphemer in some countries, in other countries at most you can expect a fine to be levied.

Israel has Jew population but Israeli state is a war criminal, genocidal and racist ideology cover under the name of Jew. Infact, the religious Jews denies the existence of Israeli state let alone any support for Israel occupation of Palestine and armed support for illegal settlers. Calling this out is not holocaust at all.

On other hand holocaust ban and then allowing blasphemy and insulting Islam or islamophobia is done with freedom of speech. If hate against Islam is freedom of speech then even discussing the holocaust is a crime and that's where double standards are occurring.

You don't burden yourself with sensitivity of any topic but it doesn't mean that you will provoke others or hurt their religious sentiments by way of so-called freedom of speech. Respect for respect. No Muslim country ever supported or expressed happiness over holocaust neither any official permission is given to shame Jews in general. How west in general tried to stop islamophobia is the question holding a lot of meaning for them to ponder upon.
The selective denial to stop another evil doesn't mean that the rest of religion can be disrespected. Ban every phobia or be the hypocrites.
 
Why would you single out the Holocaust as a historical event on which to ban dissent?
I am not doing it, am I?

I don’t get why this is made an exception, IMO free speech should allow for Holocaust denial.
It may be called "free speech" but the way it's employed in Jew-hating populations is as a heckler's veto, words repeated endlessly to drown out voices and sources providing truth, yes?

If - the justification is based on the premise -
I think you have as much access to the internet as I do. So there is no need to believe me when you can look up a country's laws and even a country's lawmakers' debates yourself, right?
And finally why is Anti-Semetism the most evil thing on earth but Islamaphobia is cool?
Wow, you are the first person ever to suggest that I'm the judge of what "is cool" and what is not!

I don't know if I can answer the "cool" bit but I'd like to point out that the definition of words has been twisted a bit here. The short version, as I see it:

Antisemitism is hostility towards Jews as a people or Jews' religion. You'd think the term should apply to all "Semites" but the term was invented by a German to apply to Jews exclusively and those who claim otherwise are either confused or attempting to change what was written or said to serve their present aims.

Islamophobia is currently defined as, "fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general." This is a misuse of the suffix "-phobia" which in every other case I know of means, "an irrational or morbid fear" of whatever prefixes it. Those who throw around the term "Islamophobia" as a put-down are, in effect, trying to confuse the idea that grounds for real and rational fears of Islamic terrorism exist by placing it beyond debate, into the realm that those who express such fears are mentally ill and their ideas should be discounted.

Do you want more from me, here?
 
I am not doing it, am I?

It may be called "free speech" but the way it's employed in Jew-hating populations is as a heckler's veto, words repeated endlessly to drown out voices and sources providing truth, yes?

You were supporting limits on this speech, so I think the questions are valid. If someone else here were defending making an exception for the Holocaust or some other event, I’d ask them why.

So why? Why make an exception on this particular genocide, why not other similar events in history? Plenty of history denying racists exist on other subjects too.
 
Islamophobe/Accusing others of anti semitism
You were supporting limits on this speech, so I think the questions are valid.
Re-reading my original comment, I see it could be interpreted that way. My purpose, however, was to explain, to the best of my understanding, the motives of some European countries that have these Holocaust denial laws. (As I and others have noted, such laws don't exist in my country, the U.S.)

So why? Why make an exception on this particular genocide, why not other similar events in history?
Here's a clue: the word "genocide" didn't even exist before the Holocaust. For more on the uniqueness of the Holocaust, see, for example, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/what-makes-the-holocaust-unique.

Plenty of history denying racists exist on other subjects too.
Is that supposed to be an excuse for tolerating and promoting your own?
 
Re-reading my original comment, I see it could be interpreted that way. My purpose, however, was to explain, to the best of my understanding, the motives of some European countries that have these Holocaust denial laws. (As I and others have noted, such laws don't exist in my country, the U.S.)

Okay, so just to be clear, you don't support banning holocaust denial?

Here's a clue: the word "genocide" didn't even exist before the Holocaust. For more on the uniqueness of the Holocaust, see, for example, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/what-makes-the-holocaust-unique.

Instead of implying you've got some hidden point to make, pls just make the argument, I've asked multiple times now why the Holocaust deserves an exceptional status. Simply re-affirming the fact that some people have given it that status is not sufficient, there's no reasoning there to be talked about.

As for coinage of the term, point accepted, but it's not the first or last genocide in history. Why is any one genocide objectively worse than another, and even if one is, on what basis might we ban conspiracies related to one, but not others.

Europe takes the holocaust this seriously, mostly as penance for the crime done, and because only a few generations have passed since the attempted extermination of a people. It's understandable, given history, culture, context, and national/continental sensitivities that denial of the holocaust be punishable. But logically it can't really be defended well.

Is that supposed to be an excuse for tolerating and promoting your own?

Where did I even imply that it was?
 
Last edited:
simple the difrrence between muslims and jew is too big . jew are running the show of world in every field and muslims are failed in every field .

think about it if khadim rizvi was a nobel winner cosmologist / scientist / physicist his words have 1000s time more valuable in west rather then a Islamist extremist whom sitting on wheelchair and bashing everyone .

the difrrence of stephen howking and khadim rizvi is simple

Going around beheading people, flying jetliners into skyscrappers, putting bounties on writers does not help
 

Back
Top Bottom