"Holocaust denial" to become a crime in Ireland?

[Lamprecht]

Earler this week an article came out stating that new "hate speech legislation" may criminalize "holocaust denial" in Ireland. What we are witnessing is an unremitting assault on freedom of speech throughout the western world, with "holocaust denial" grouped in with other forms of so-called "hate speech" in legislation designed to stifle freedom of speech and the press. This comes in response to widespread skepticism over the mainstream media's reporting on the novel coronavirus as well as an increase in skepticism of the official "holocaust" narrative throughout the world. All of these so called "free western democracies" are pushing for new legislation to tackle "disinformation" because apparently democracy can't work unless certain opinions and ideas are censored.

Holocaust denial may become an offence under new legislation
Officials believe State must comply with international obligations on hate speech
Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 01:00

Forthcoming hate speech legislation could make the denial or minimalisation of genocides such as the Holocaust an offence in the Republic, The Irish Times understands.

Holocaust denial or trivialisation is a crime in many European countries, including France and Germany.

The introduction of similar legislation is to be examined by Department of Justice officials over the coming months as part of a new suite of hate crime and hate speech laws due to come before Cabinet sometime around Easter 2021.

Yesterday, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee launched a series of recommendations for the enactment of the laws criminalising the publishing or sharing of hate speech online where there is an intent to incite violence.

The topic of genocide denial was not examined in detail by department officials prior during the consultation process and is not mentioned in the report. The issue is not believed to be a major problem in Ireland.
Obligations

However, officials believe there is a general international principle that modern hate speech laws should include laws against the minimalisation or denial of genocides, including the murder of 17 million people by the Nazi regime before and during the second World War.

There is also a belief among officials that Ireland will be expected under certain international obligations to include such a provision.

In 2008, the Council of the European Union passed a non-binding framework decision calling for the criminalisation of the denial of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when that conduct is likely to incite hate or violence.

Under the directive, genocide is defined by the International Criminal Court and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the tribunal set up to prosecute Nazi war criminals.

It is understood any provision in Irish law would criminalise the denial of all genocides, not just the Holocaust, in circumstances where such action could incite hate.

The introduction of laws against genocide denial in other countries have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights which found they do not breach the right to freedom of expression.

Speaking yesterday at the launch of the department’s report, Ms McEntee said the proposed hate speech laws will not be about “catching people out” for misspeaking.

Offence

Instead, the legislation will target people who “intentionally or recklessly” incite hatred against individuals or groups.

The test for criminal hate speech will be the perpetrator’s intentions, not how the speech was perceived by the victim.

The Bill will list trans people and people with disabilities, alongside already protected groups such as other members of the LGBT community people, refugees, immigrants, Travellers and ethnic and religious groups.

Asked if it will be an offence to misgender a trans person or use their former name, Mr McEntee said: “We’re not trying to catch people out, this is not something you can stumble into by accident. This is not about somebody causing offence to somebody else or misspeaking.

“What is very clear is we’re talking about a intention or recklessness to incite hatred against one individual or a group of people.”

The Minister said she was legislating for a “very serious type of crime that has very serious consequences for individuals. But this isn’t about somebody who might say something without intending to cause harm.

“That would obviously be a much wider scope and it wouldn’t be implementable.”

http://web.archive.org/web/202012180604 ... -1.4440014 or http://archive.fo/W0Xqf

[Hannover]

It's revealing that the very same cultural Marxists / Zionists who want to silence free speech openly espouse real hatred of 'whites' who they say are necessarily born 'racist & evil', which is truly an 'intent to incite violence'.

- Hannover

Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

[Merlin300]

There is a certain amount of irony in the argument that NOT believing in tales of human soap factories, burning baby bonfires, and demonic trick gas chamber showers is classified as "Hate."

I am going to write a polite letter and send it to the Irish Times at [email protected].

As a bit of background, the Holocaust Education Trust of Ireland wanted to hold a public "educational" lecture on "Denial."
Bradley Smith sent a polite letter suggesting that they MIGHT want to hear from a real "Denier" at the lecture.
The whole place snapped shut. The lecture was closed to the public and seems to have gone dark.

Here is a letter sent by CODOH https://codoh.com/library/document/lett ... e-heti/en/
Dear Chairperson Cassells-

First, congratulations on your election as new Chairperson of HETI.

In November 2010 the Holocaust Education Trust held a conference entitled International Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Since I am what you refer to as a “denier," I wanted to attend. So did several other people with, what is correctly called, Revisionist views. I thought I might contribute a small bit to people's understanding of Revisionism if I spoke in support of the necessity, in a free society, of an open exchange of ideas in an environment of good will from that perspective. I noted that as it stood, the program would be the standard "one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences." Unfortunately, I was correct. Not much new at the Conference, let alone allowing a Revisionist to speak! However, there is always a chance for understanding and dialogue to be opened between people of good faith. That is why I am writing to you and to HETI trustees.

There are only a handful of Revisionist scholars around the world so it is rather amazing that expressing Revisionist ideas is a felony in many countries. Revisionists are regularly censored, black-listed, physically attacked and harassed. Our views are regularly distorted, our goals regularly misrepresented. Unfortunately, HETI played its own part in this ugly story during its 2010 conference.

HETI announces that it wants to promote "a positive understanding of tolerance and diversity." With that welcome concept it occurs to me that you might be willing to start with HETI itself and turn away from the outright censorship of the 2010 HETI conference. HETI could sponsor a lecture on Revisionism which actually allowed a Revisionist to speak. Or HETI could post a statement about Revisionism and Intellectual Freedom on its website allowing us to present our view of some of the many issues that should be addressed with regard to the orthodox history of the Holocaust. I believe many at the conference would find it interesting and informative to hear such questions aired and to follow the discussion that would follow. Why would they not?

Because the only information you might have about "deniers" (a simple “slur”) is from the 2010 HETI conference, I would like to clarify what Revisionism is. In 2010 I wrote:

"Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as 'anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,' that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."

The enemies of tolerance and diversity are not always the same. Nor are their targets. Surely, however, one certain sign of bigotry expresses itself in the unwillingness to listen to the other, or to even allow the other to speak. I hope to hear back from HETI on a small plan to allow Revisionists to present information and a perspective that were censored at the 2010 HETI conference.

Yours for tolerance and diversity,

[Hannover]

One would think that Revisionist research which proves that "6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 others" were in fact not murdered would be welcomed.
Jews in particular should be elated by the news that 6,000,000 of their brethren did not meet such a fate.

A fair question is:

'Why do people want "6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 others" to be dead?
Revisionists don't.

- Hannover

"Some stories are true that never happened."
- Elie Wiesel

[Merlin300]

A fair question is:

'Why do people want "6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 others" to be dead?
Revisionists don't.

- Hannover

A good Christmas thought, Hannover- The dishonesty of the professional Holocaust promoters can be observed
regarding the Majdanek figures.

When the exciting news came out dropping the death toll at Majdanek to a "normal" but still tragic 78,000 I expected people to rush to embrace
Revisionism. December 23, 2005

Majdanek Victims Enumerated. Changes in the history textbooks?
23-12-2005
Two figures of the number of Majdanek victims have usually been in use—360,000 or 235,000. Kranz, director of the Research Department of the State Museum at Majdanek, asserts that approximately 59,000 Jews and 19,000 people of other ethnic backgrounds, mostly Poles and Byelorussians, died there. Kranz published his estimate in the latest edition of the journal Zeszyty Majdanka.

The figure of 360,000 victims appears in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, the Britannica Polish edition, and the Polish Nowa Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. In all three cases, the source is a 1948 publication by Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, a judge who was a member of the Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland.

http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/maj ... ks,44.html

In fact Soviet "evidence" presented at Nuremberg claimed 1,400,000. The Auschwitz State Museum politely forgets this.

The Exaggeration of the USHMM
Rather than present the well substantiated figure of 78,000, the United States Holocaust Memorial faked the "Majdanek figures" to include a large group of
satellite camps. This exaggerated the "death toll."

The number of Jewish prisoners who died in Majdanek’s subcamps between October 1943 and January 1945 is not known. Hence, at a minimum, between 95,000 and 130,000 prisoners died in the Majdanek system between November 1941 and January 1945.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... f-research

The USHMM gang deserve only a lump of coal in their stockings. Congress gave them millions of dollars in 2020.

[Merlin300]

There is an old Irish saying,
"Anything important to say can be said in one sentence. Anything dishonest takes 54 pages".

Ireland's Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee TD issued a 54 page report on why "hate speech" should be criminalized. It should
be read; it is scary!

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Legislati ... nd_Web.pdf

Minister McEntee's first point is everybody is criminalizing speech. Ireland should too!
"

The introduction of laws against genocide denial in other countries have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights which found they do not breach the right to freedom of expression.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.4440014

Then she tells Ireland, "Don't worry your little heads about this.

the proposed hate speech laws will not be about “catching people out” for misspeaking.

Instead,

the legislation will target people who “intentionally or recklessly” incite hatred against individuals or groups.

And, "It is understood any provision in Irish law would criminalise the denial of all genocides, not just the Holocaust,

"https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/holocaust-denial-may-become-an-offence-under-new-legislation-1.4440014


The most concerning parts of the Report:

There should be no requirement for the material to be threatening, abusive or insulting in itself. This is a change from the 1989 Act which always requires the material itself to be threatening, abusive or insulting in nature. So, a broadcast or speech which is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is couched in polite or coded language, would be covered by the new offence.

??? So mere intent is a crime?? But how do you prove THAT?

This legislation will complement the hate speech legislation by establishing a robust regulatory framework to deal with the spread of harmful online content. It also provides for the appointment of an Online Safety Commissioner as part of a wider Media Commission to oversee the new regulatory framework for online safety.

Ireland, be prepared to have everything you post, text, or communicate saved and scanned for any sign of "intent."

A company accused of displaying or distributing hateful material should be able to defend itself by showing that it has reasonable measures in place to prevent dissemination of this type of material in general, was complying with those measures at the time and was unaware and had no reason to suspect that this particular content was inciteful

"Had no reason" as a defense to a criminal charge. Pretty sketchy there Minister of Justice.

[Lamprecht]

The government of Ireland may be passing a new "Hate speech" law. The mere possession of "material deemed to be able to provoke hatred against protected individuals" would be a crime of up to 2 years in prison. We know from previous court cases, at least in other countries, that "Holocaust denial" material is somehow expected to be able to "provoke hatred" against Jews (they have never explained why).

Additionally, all that is necessary to acquire a search warrant is for a police officer to declare under oath that it is "reasonable" to believe the target has such material. I suspect that means that an officer can declare that for literally anyone and then they can steal all of your electronic devices, then look through them for as long as they wish until they find something that they don't like.

You may think this sounds like "extremism" to break into people's houses and steal their computers and phones because they might have some books or articles saved with at least one sentence that could theoretically "provoke hatred" against a group. For example, the New Testament of the Bible, which Jewish extremists have claimed "provoked hatred" against the Jews in Europe for centuries. But actually, the extremists are people that mind their own business and like to read books. If you disagree, you might be a bigot! In fact, this all sounds like freedom to me

Irish Government Accused of ‘Thought Policing’ with Proposed Hate Speech Law

PETER CADDLE
12 Nov 2022

Government ministers have been accused of pushing “thought policing” hate speech laws that could see people jailed for so much as possessing material that is deemed to be hateful.

Members of Ireland’s parliament have slammed the country’s government as wanting to implement a regime of “thought policing” in the European Union member-state.

Under the proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which is aimed at implementing “hate speech” laws in Ireland, people found to be in possession of material deemed to be able to provoke hatred against protected individuals could face up to two years in jail.

To make matters worse, while those found with illegal material may be able to claim that they had no intention of actually distributing the offending material as a defence, such an excuse would require them to prove to a court that they had no intention of distributing the problematic content.

Speaking in the country’s parliament on Thursday, the leader of the opposition party Aontú, Peadar Tóibín TD, described the proposal as an attempt by the government to impose “thought policing” on Ireland,

In particular, the party leader heavily criticised the country’s Justice Minister, Helen McEntee, as wanting to censor people she disagrees with.

“For pluralism it must be possible for mutually opposing ideologies to coexist simultaneously,” he said.

“The quote attributed to Voltaire ‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ is a foundation stone of tolerance and pluralism and therefore cohesion within a liberal democracy.”

“Helen McEntee’s version of that quote is ‘I may not agree with what you have to say and I will put you in jail for saying it,'” he observed.

He also criticised the ease with which a judge could issue a search warrant against the property of an individual so much as suspected to be in possession of “hateful” material.

Under the bill as proposed, a judge at the district court level will be able to issue a search warrant against a person’s home should a member of the country’s police service claim under oath that there is “reasonable” grounds to believe illegal material may be present in a person’s home.

“It is incredible that Gardaí would have a right to search your homes on this basis,” he remarked.

While a minority of TDs expressed similar concerns to the ones held by Tóibín, the vast majority within the Irish parliament voiced support for the implementation of hate speech rules, with some members of government parties, in particular, appearing to be in favour of the rules that could see people jailed for possessing material deemed hateful.

Such a position appears to have seriously disappointed many freedom of expression advocates in the country, with the campaign group Free Speech Ireland expressing frustration that most members failed to challenge many of the serious problems with the bill.

“We are disappointed that the main opposition party and the Government parties failed to raise any of the legal, political or philosophical concerns that we and many other groups raised over the past months,” a spokesman for the group told Breitbart Europe.

“With few exceptions, politicians took a blasé approach to a debate that would deny Irish people their rights and freedoms,” they continued. “Our experience in canvassing is that the will to oppose this bill is far greater than the will to the will to impose.”

The spokesman went on to emphasise that the group would continue to campaign against the proposed legislation “until this bill is rejected”.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/1 ... peech-law/

[EtienneSC]

Earler this week an article came out stating that new "hate speech legislation" may criminalize "holocaust denial" in Ireland.

This has now been published as a Bill titled "An Bille um Cheartas Coiriúil (Gríosú chun Foréigin nó Fuatha agus Cionta Fuatha), 2022 / Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022". Voters in the Republic of Ireland may wish to contact their representatives about it before it becomes law.

The legal text can be found here:
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/initiated/b10522d-p-c-sent.pdf

Part Two Section 8 states that:

A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if the person—
(a) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
(b) behaves in a public place in a manner,
that condones, denies or grossly trivialises—
(i) genocide,
(ii) a crime against humanity,
(iii) a war crime, or
(iv) an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, where such communication of material or behaviour is directed against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics and is done with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or such a group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those characteristics.

(My Italics) This may not be as bad as it sounds, as any prosecution would have to prove an intent to incite violence or hatred. There are also defences where a legitimate purpose of contributing to debate can be proved. The terms are clarified as follows:

“an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal” means such an act that has been determined to be a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as the case may be, each within the meaning of that Article by a final decision of the International Military Tribunal established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and referred to in Article 1 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal;

“Charter of the International Military Tribunal” means the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945;
[.....]
“crime against humanity” (other than in the definition of “an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal”) means any of the acts specified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute where such an act has been determined to be a crime against humanity by a final decision of a court in the State or of an international court or tribunal;

I believe that the legal jargon reflects International or European Union proposals or recommendations. It is reminiscent of the loi Gayssot in France.

It's also worth noting that a recent report to the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) sought to defend the rights of researchers. The IHRA itself may be worried that criminalising scholars might show "Holocaust studies" in a poor light.

[Hektor]

....
Part Two Section 8 states that:

A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if the person—
(a) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
(b) behaves in a public place in a manner,
that condones, denies or grossly trivialises—
(i) genocide,
(ii) a crime against humanity,
(iii) a war crime, or
(iv) an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, where such communication of material or behaviour is directed against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics and is done with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or such a group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those characteristics.

(My Italics) This may not be as bad as it sounds, as any prosecution would have to prove an intent to incite violence or hatred. There are also defences where a legitimate purpose of contributing to debate can be proved. The terms are clarified as follows:

There is two things here:
1. It elevates the IMT by recognizing it as setting standard for present legislation. Essentially also legitimizing and making credible the verdicts. We know that there are problems with this. Problems that are ignored by most, but they are there, regardless.
2. They may not want to have convictions. Dragging dissenters into trials and lengthy and costly legal proceedings and during the proceedings insinuation can be made that 'doubters are haters'. That is sufficient for the propaganda purpose aimed at and also for intimidation to researchers and publishers.

“an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal” means such an act that has been determined to be a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as the case may be, each within the meaning of that Article by a final decision of the International Military Tribunal established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and referred to in Article 1 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal;

“Charter of the International Military Tribunal” means the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945;
[.....]
“crime against humanity” (other than in the definition of “an act specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal”) means any of the acts specified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute where such an act has been determined to be a crime against humanity by a final decision of a court in the State or of an international court or tribunal;

I believe that the legal jargon reflects International or European Union proposals or recommendations. It is reminiscent of the loi Gayssot in France.

It's also worth noting that a recent report to the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) sought to defend the rights of researchers. The IHRA itself may be worried that criminalising scholars might show "Holocaust studies" in a poor light.

Those are legal definitions that can be easily play with. Was the detention of Jews a 'crime against humanity'? Was their special assignation and 'discriminatory' treatment? That isn't even in dispute. What is in dispute is 'extermination plan' and mass killing by gas chambers. And that may be something they'd like to get around. Because they know they can't really prove this, just keep alive in memory via innuendo.

As far as Holocaust Studies this already got some bad taste for those that are not deeply into it. People may 'accept the narrative' in principle, but that doesn't mean they accept everything that is done and how it's taught. The Holocaust industry is partially accommodating to this. They can count on people's belief that there is no ill intent behind 'teaching the Holocaust'... Well, there actually is, but to know this one has to look at the bigger picture. And pointing out the details to make people understand is labor-some (and frustrating). In the process they can label people doing this as "ant-Semites", simply because not so pleasant aspects of Jewish Organizations will be part of the discussion.

[hermod]

It's also worth noting that a recent report to the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) sought to defend the rights of researchers.

Don't let yourself be fooled by such a posture. That's just a trick for "Public Relations" purposes. Feigning opposition to such a gag-law conceals to some extent the fraudulent and fragile nature of the Holohoax and the crucial need to protect it with gag-laws. Such a posture is enough to deceive most normies and make the Holohoax look like a proven hard fact not requiring censorship.

If memory serves me right, Simone Veil and some influential intellectuals used the same trick in France. She and others claimed that they were against the Fabius-Gayssot Law, but they never did anything against it and Simone Veil always bashed Holocaust revisionists and portrayed them as frauds at every opportunity. Words cost nothing, but they don't speak as loudly as actions. Pure hypocrisy for deception purposes.

The IHRA itself may be worried that criminalising scholars might show "Holocaust studies" in a poor light.

Won't show "Holocaust studies" in a poorer light than the silencing of Galileo Galilei finally showed the geocentric model in a poor light...