3 ms·

I never said it was the right decision. I said it is possible for the two decisions to coexist and that is the description for how they coexist. I don't know

by slg 5y ago

I never said it was the right decision. I said it is possible for the two decisions to coexist and that is the description for how they coexist. I don't know what I else I could write here that would satisfy you.

skissane 5y ago
So, my claim is, that the ECHR's case law on genocide denial is inconsistent, and that inconsistency is politically motivated. I don't think I've proven the claim. But I think an objective person would have to say that there is a reasonable possibility it is true. Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Suddenly ::crickets::
  - slg 5y ago
    Sorry, I didn't realize I had an obligation to spend all of my Friday night constantly refreshing HN. My fault.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- slg 5y ago
  >Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true? Sure, it is reasonable it is politically motivated. It is also reasonable it isn't. Giving the lack of definitive answer, I chose to give the benefit of the doubt to the ECHR. Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Well, my point is this – if you try to justify laws against genocide denial, it is easier to justify them if those laws are consistent, and based on principle rather than politics. If there is a real possibility that we have unprincipled inconsistencies in them, that is a problem for their justification.
    - slg 5y ago
      Why is the justification impacted by the consistency of certain implementations? Speed limits aren't consistent. You can't go above 60 mph anywhere in Hawaii, but some places in Texas you can go 85 mph. That doesn't mean speed limits aren't justifiable. Laws are always going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes that difference is based on principle. Sometimes it is based on politics. But even if it is tweaked due to politics, it doesn't invalidate the principle behind the entire law.
      - skissane 5y ago
        When laws treat members of different racial/ethnic/national groups differently, that's a form of discrimination. If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently. It is going to upset many members of group B, and damage social cohesion. Especially so if the different legal treatment is based on politics rather than principle. I don't think your case of speed limits is really comparable. Nobody's personal identity is based on a speed limit, those laws – however rational or irrational they may be – are not relevant to personal identity. But genocide denial laws are relevant to personal identity – to racial/ethnic/national/etc identity – since different genocides have different victim groups, and there are people alive today who belong to those victim groups and identify with them, and the victims of a genocide (and their descendants) have a special interest in whether it is legal to deny that genocide.
        slg 5y ago
        >If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently. That was not the ruling of the court. You are projecting that as the result of the court's decisions, but the court expressly said this was not what their ruling meant. Then you are assuming a motive based off that projection. You are effectively pointing to one court case in which a woman was found innocent of murder and one in which a man was found guilty of murder and concluding that the system is obviously gender biased against men. My argument is not even necessarily that you are wrong, my argument is that you can't draw this conclusion from these two cases.

by slg 5y ago

skissane 5y ago

So, my claim is, that the ECHR's case law on genocide denial is inconsistent, and that inconsistency is politically motivated. I don't think I've proven the claim. But I think an objective person would have to say that there is a reasonable possibility it is true. Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true?

imwillofficial 5y ago
Suddenly ::crickets::
- slg 5y ago
  Sorry, I didn't realize I had an obligation to spend all of my Friday night constantly refreshing HN. My fault.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
slg 5y ago
>Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true? Sure, it is reasonable it is politically motivated. It is also reasonable it isn't. Giving the lack of definitive answer, I chose to give the benefit of the doubt to the ECHR. Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
- skissane 5y ago
  Well, my point is this – if you try to justify laws against genocide denial, it is easier to justify them if those laws are consistent, and based on principle rather than politics. If there is a real possibility that we have unprincipled inconsistencies in them, that is a problem for their justification.
  - slg 5y ago
    Why is the justification impacted by the consistency of certain implementations? Speed limits aren't consistent. You can't go above 60 mph anywhere in Hawaii, but some places in Texas you can go 85 mph. That doesn't mean speed limits aren't justifiable. Laws are always going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes that difference is based on principle. Sometimes it is based on politics. But even if it is tweaked due to politics, it doesn't invalidate the principle behind the entire law.
    - skissane 5y ago
      When laws treat members of different racial/ethnic/national groups differently, that's a form of discrimination. If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently. It is going to upset many members of group B, and damage social cohesion. Especially so if the different legal treatment is based on politics rather than principle. I don't think your case of speed limits is really comparable. Nobody's personal identity is based on a speed limit, those laws – however rational or irrational they may be – are not relevant to personal identity. But genocide denial laws are relevant to personal identity – to racial/ethnic/national/etc identity – since different genocides have different victim groups, and there are people alive today who belong to those victim groups and identify with them, and the victims of a genocide (and their descendants) have a special interest in whether it is legal to deny that genocide.
      - slg 5y ago
        >If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently. That was not the ruling of the court. You are projecting that as the result of the court's decisions, but the court expressly said this was not what their ruling meant. Then you are assuming a motive based off that projection. You are effectively pointing to one court case in which a woman was found innocent of murder and one in which a man was found guilty of murder and concluding that the system is obviously gender biased against men. My argument is not even necessarily that you are wrong, my argument is that you can't draw this conclusion from these two cases.