5 ms·

While Amnesty is doing the right thing here, the organization shouldn't be supported as a whole. They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail

by nawitus 13y ago

While Amnesty is doing the right thing here, the organization shouldn't be supported as a whole. They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail for politically incorrect opinions. Therefore they don't advocate for freedom of speech but rather opinions that fit their own world view. 1. http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-international-will-not-defend-holocaust-denial-advocate http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-internati...

felixrieseberg 13y ago
...interesting, as a German I'd find it more difficult to support Amnesty if they did defend the 'historian' (you don't just get to call yourself that). Amnesty does not support hate speech or calls for violence, and I'm totally okay with that.
- nawitus 13y ago
  They have refused to support David Irving, who certainly deserves to be called a historian.
  - turing 13y ago
    I don't claim to be an expect on Irving, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that he is an active Holocaust denier that an English court found "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." I'm sure there is more to his story, but to say that he "certainly deserves" to be called a historian is pretty simplistic.
    - nawitus 13y ago
      He was a respected historian before his holocaust claims.
- baddox 13y ago
  That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it's not very appropriate to call it compatible with freedom of speech.
  - revscat 13y ago
    I think that it is. There are limits to speech everywhere, whether it is the prototypical "fire in a theater" example, or making threats. It is simply another in that category.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    The German constitution does not recognize freedom of speech; what it does recognize is freedom of political expression. There's a limit to this, though, when it is perceived to endanger public peace. Holocaust denial and suchlike has always been considered an assault on public peace. No public figure will be seen denying the holocaust or similar, the only purpose of that sort of statement can be to incite a mob. That's the background. Now consider this: the German constitution was commissioned in 1948 by the Allied Powers, there was much experience in the Commission that developed it with constitutions of democratic nations, and the Nazi experience was fresh in everyone's mind. I think the fact that Germany does not have "freedom of speech" written in its constitution wants to tell you something. TL;DR: Germany does not recognize freedom of speech. Germans consider this to be a Good Thing.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > compatible with freedom of speech Which actually has little to do with prisoner of conscience status by itself. It's true enough that a prisoner of conscience has her freedom of speech violated in most cases. It doesn't follow that everyone whose freedom of speech is violated is a prisoner of conscience.
pliny 13y ago
Incitement to racism is not protected speech. Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation and another time for inciting racism.
- nawitus 13y ago
  >Incitement to racism is not protected speech. Holocaust denial is not racism. >Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation. >and another time for inciting racism. A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
  - pliny 13y ago
    >Holocaust denial is not racism. You are welcome to read, as an example, the very first article of Mr Toben's most recent newsletter [1] in which he makes the case that jews do not value the lives of gentiles and are involved in ethnic cleansing of whites in america. >Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation. I agree, but the operative word is 'might', it might also not be and that's why refusing to defend him does not call into question Amnesty's commitment to promoting free speech, but only their clear judgement. Defamation is not protected speech because it unjustly harms the person or people being defamed, and fabricating blood libel about holocaust victims would be very hard for amnesty to honestly justify. >A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion. A state can, potentially, define anything as any other thing, so this is not a particularly convincing argument without a solid example. [1] http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%20716.pdf http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%2071...
    - MichaelSalib 13y ago
      Wow. Thank you for digging up that crap. I expected that a holocaust denier would be odious and vile, but I didn't think he'd actually write about Jews ethnically cleansing white people. That is...just wow.
  - 13y ago
greenyoda 13y ago
Amnesty International doesn't have enough funding to defend everyone; they need to allocate their scarce resources where they think they'll do the most good. Making Germany safe for holocaust revisionists probably isn't very high on that list.
- nawitus 13y ago
  They haven't cited budget as their reason for refusing to defend politically incorrect historians. Making a Western country safe for all scientific opinions should be high on a list of their goals.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > politically incorrect historians. In this case you can safely abbreviate this to "liars." Not everything is a matter of opinion. > scientific opinions WTF?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Probably worth pointing out that the ACLU also operates with finite funding and has still famously defended the KKK on numerous occasions. I think the real difference is different mission statements and cultural attitudes. Finite funding isn't the reason, it just simply isn't something they are interested in doing.
glomph 13y ago
They explicitly decided their goal did not include protecting hate speech before this 'historians' case came to light. I don't see anything wrong with that.
andy_ppp 13y ago
TLDR - this thread is basically about Amnesty refusing to defend holocaust deniers. You can apply Godwins law and move on immediately.
justin66 13y ago
> They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail for politically incorrect opinions. Holocaust denial is pretty clearly antithetical to their mission. Their decision that they "would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who have used or advocated violence, but also people who are imprisoned ‘for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.’" does not seem unreasonable. To take the opposite position - to argue for the release of ALL political prisoners - would have resulted in some fairly absurd situations over the years which don't really need to be enumerated here, I would think.
IsaacL 13y ago
http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/gita-sahgal-feminist-whistleblower-suspended-amnesty-international http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/gita-sahgal-feminist... Here's another interesting story I came across - basically, Amnesty sacked one of their staff because she, an outspoken feminist, criticised their cosy relationship with radical Islamists. If anyone reading this has time, follow some of the names in that article - you might discover, like I did, that the world is far more fucked up than you had previously imagined.

by nawitus 13y ago

felixrieseberg 13y ago

...interesting, as a German I'd find it more difficult to support Amnesty if they did defend the 'historian' (you don't just get to call yourself that). Amnesty does not support hate speech or calls for violence, and I'm totally okay with that.

nawitus 13y ago
They have refused to support David Irving, who certainly deserves to be called a historian.
- turing 13y ago
  I don't claim to be an expect on Irving, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that he is an active Holocaust denier that an English court found "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." I'm sure there is more to his story, but to say that he "certainly deserves" to be called a historian is pretty simplistic.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    He was a respected historian before his holocaust claims.
baddox 13y ago
That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it's not very appropriate to call it compatible with freedom of speech.
- revscat 13y ago
  I think that it is. There are limits to speech everywhere, whether it is the prototypical "fire in a theater" example, or making threats. It is simply another in that category.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  The German constitution does not recognize freedom of speech; what it does recognize is freedom of political expression. There's a limit to this, though, when it is perceived to endanger public peace. Holocaust denial and suchlike has always been considered an assault on public peace. No public figure will be seen denying the holocaust or similar, the only purpose of that sort of statement can be to incite a mob. That's the background. Now consider this: the German constitution was commissioned in 1948 by the Allied Powers, there was much experience in the Commission that developed it with constitutions of democratic nations, and the Nazi experience was fresh in everyone's mind. I think the fact that Germany does not have "freedom of speech" written in its constitution wants to tell you something. TL;DR: Germany does not recognize freedom of speech. Germans consider this to be a Good Thing.
- justin66 13y ago
  > compatible with freedom of speech Which actually has little to do with prisoner of conscience status by itself. It's true enough that a prisoner of conscience has her freedom of speech violated in most cases. It doesn't follow that everyone whose freedom of speech is violated is a prisoner of conscience.

pliny 13y ago

Incitement to racism is not protected speech. Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation and another time for inciting racism.

nawitus 13y ago
>Incitement to racism is not protected speech. Holocaust denial is not racism. >Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation. >and another time for inciting racism. A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
- pliny 13y ago
  >Holocaust denial is not racism. You are welcome to read, as an example, the very first article of Mr Toben's most recent newsletter [1] in which he makes the case that jews do not value the lives of gentiles and are involved in ethnic cleansing of whites in america. >Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation. I agree, but the operative word is 'might', it might also not be and that's why refusing to defend him does not call into question Amnesty's commitment to promoting free speech, but only their clear judgement. Defamation is not protected speech because it unjustly harms the person or people being defamed, and fabricating blood libel about holocaust victims would be very hard for amnesty to honestly justify. >A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion. A state can, potentially, define anything as any other thing, so this is not a particularly convincing argument without a solid example. [1] http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%20716.pdf http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%2071...
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    Wow. Thank you for digging up that crap. I expected that a holocaust denier would be odious and vile, but I didn't think he'd actually write about Jews ethnically cleansing white people. That is...just wow.
- 13y ago

greenyoda 13y ago

Amnesty International doesn't have enough funding to defend everyone; they need to allocate their scarce resources where they think they'll do the most good. Making Germany safe for holocaust revisionists probably isn't very high on that list.

nawitus 13y ago
They haven't cited budget as their reason for refusing to defend politically incorrect historians. Making a Western country safe for all scientific opinions should be high on a list of their goals.
- justin66 13y ago
  > politically incorrect historians. In this case you can safely abbreviate this to "liars." Not everything is a matter of opinion. > scientific opinions WTF?
jlgreco 13y ago
Probably worth pointing out that the ACLU also operates with finite funding and has still famously defended the KKK on numerous occasions. I think the real difference is different mission statements and cultural attitudes. Finite funding isn't the reason, it just simply isn't something they are interested in doing.

glomph 13y ago

They explicitly decided their goal did not include protecting hate speech before this 'historians' case came to light. I don't see anything wrong with that.

andy_ppp 13y ago

TLDR - this thread is basically about Amnesty refusing to defend holocaust deniers. You can apply Godwins law and move on immediately.

justin66 13y ago

> They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail for politically incorrect opinions. Holocaust denial is pretty clearly antithetical to their mission. Their decision that they "would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who have used or advocated violence, but also people who are imprisoned ‘for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.’" does not seem unreasonable. To take the opposite position - to argue for the release of ALL political prisoners - would have resulted in some fairly absurd situations over the years which don't really need to be enumerated here, I would think.

IsaacL 13y ago

http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/gita-sahgal-feminist-whistleblower-suspended-amnesty-international http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/gita-sahgal-feminist... Here's another interesting story I came across - basically, Amnesty sacked one of their staff because she, an outspoken feminist, criticised their cosy relationship with radical Islamists. If anyone reading this has time, follow some of the names in that article - you might discover, like I did, that the world is far more fucked up than you had previously imagined.