Holocaust Denial Criminalisation | Lizzie Watson | Opposition

Summary

The speaker argues against allowing Holocaust denial, positioning it as a form of hate speech that breeds intolerance, harms community relations, and threatens safety. She reflects on learning about the Holocaust as a child through impactful stories. While acknowledging the importance of free speech, she contends protections must be balanced against human rights. Through examples in her native Yorkshire, she shows how denial connects to broader discrimination, politically-motivated distortion of history, and tacit enablement of hate crimes. She concludes that gross denial is hate speech, should be criminalized as unlawful, and that opposing this protects all communities.

Takeaways

• 😊 It advocates holocaust denial criminalization while valuing free speech but against hate crimes
• 😔 Details atrocious murder of 150 Jews in 1159 in York
• 😟 Claims holocaust denial is anti-semitic hate speech promoting intolerance like blood libel against Jews
• 😠 Criticizes allowing holocaust denial breeding intolerance and harming community relations
• 🤔 Questions motivations behind holocaust denial having hidden political agenda
• 😢 Reflects on implications of Islamophobia post 9/11 terror attacks
• 😡 Asserts holocaust denial causes emotional harm escalating to hate crimes against Jews and Muslims
• 🧐 Contrasts sophisticated spacious denier arguments against qualitative/quantitative implications
• 😤 Urges criminalizing holocaust denial as hate speech and hate crime diminishing society
• 😌 Cites multicultural strength with previous Jewish and Muslim mayors in Leeds

Q & A

What is the main topic being debated in the transcript?

The main topic is whether holocaust denial should be criminalized.

What is the speaker's view on the criminalization of holocaust denial?

The speaker opposes the motion and supports criminalizing holocaust denial.

How does the speaker use the story The Boy in the Striped Pajamas to make their point?

The speaker uses the story to illustrate how most children in Europe are introduced to the holocaust at a young age, reinforcing that it is an undeniable historical fact.

What is the speaker's argument regarding freedom of speech and holocaust denial laws?

The speaker acknowledges the importance of free speech but believes there needs to be a balance with protecting individuals and minorities from hate speech and crime.

Why does the speaker cite their Yorkshire background when discussing anti-semitism?

To provide a personal perspective and reference the history of anti-semitism in the area, linking historical anti-semitism to modern day holocaust denial.

What is the speaker's view on the motivation behind holocaust denial?

The speaker believes the motivation lies in promoting harmful, anti-semitic views rather than genuine historical debate.

How does the speaker use the example of 9/11 and Islamophobia?

To argue that failing to address emotions created by events like 9/11 can breed intolerance, just as allowing holocaust denial breeds intolerance.

What is the speaker's main argument against tolerance of holocaust denial?

The speaker argues that being tolerant of holocaust denial allows intolerance to spread, creating harm and hate that diminishes society.

How does the speaker relate holocaust denial to hate crimes?

The speaker argues holocaust denial is a form of hate speech that can escalate fears and emotional responses, leading to increased hate crimes.

What does the speaker urge others to do regarding the motion?

The speaker urges others to oppose the motion and support criminalizing holocaust denial.

Outlines

00:00

😞 Opening Speech Introducing Debate Topic and Speakers

The first paragraph is the opening speech given by the first opposition speaker. It introduces the debate topic on criminalizing Holocaust denial and frames it in the context of free speech, hate crimes and anti-Semitism in democratic societies. The speaker then introduces the proposition team - Harrison Edmunds, Sir Richard Evans, and Professor Deborah Lipstadt.

05:01

😠 Connecting Holocaust Denial to History of Anti-Semitism

The second paragraph draws connections between Holocaust denial and the history of anti-Semitism, using the example of a pogrom in Yorkshire. It argues that allowing Holocaust deniers to go unprosecuted enables anti-Semitic views to spread in society and threatens individuals' freedom to live free of hate crime. It also questions the motivations behind denial and argues it is often driven by hate or harmful political agendas.

10:02

😥 Measuring Harmful Impact on Communities

The third paragraph further develops the idea of measuring impact on communities, using other examples like downplaying the slave trade or 9/11. It argues that denial causes emotional and physical harm that can escalate crimes against groups like Jews and Muslims. It summarizes by urging opposition to the motion as denial constitutes hate speech/crime that should be made unlawful.

Keywords

💡holocaust denial

Holocaust denial refers to claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II often referred to as the Holocaust did not happen or has been greatly exaggerated. The speaker argues that holocaust denial is a form of hate speech that should not be legally protected.

💡hate speech

Hate speech refers to communication that disparages or intimidates a person or group based on some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. The speaker argues holocaust denial constitutes hate speech aimed at Jewish people.

💡anti-semitism

Anti-semitism refers to hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people. The speaker argues that holocaust denial is driven by and promotes anti-semitism.

💡free speech

Free speech refers to the legal right to express one's opinions and ideas without government censorship. The speaker acknowledges the importance of free speech but argues it has limits when it promotes hate crimes.

💡hate crime

Hate crimes refer to criminal acts motivated by bias or hostility towards particular groups of people. The speaker is concerned that allowing holocaust denial will promote hate crimes towards minority groups like Jews.

💡democracy

Democracy refers to a political system based on rule by the people, often safeguarded by rights like free speech. The speaker grapples with balancing democratic rights like free speech with protecting minorities from harm.

💡motivation

The speaker questions and tries to unveil the motivation behind holocaust denial, suggesting it is driven by antisemitism and aims to promote harmful views rather than genuine historical debate.

💡impact

The speaker argues that allowing holocaust denial, as a form of hate speech, has a negative social impact by breeding intolerance, diminishing communities, and threatening the safety of minority groups.

💡harm

The speaker sees holocaust denial as causing harm - emotional harm from offensive or intimidating speech as well as potential physical harm in the form of hate crimes promoted by antisemitic views.

💡communities

The speaker discusses the impact of hate speech and holocaust denial on the social fabric, arguing that ultimately it harms and diminishes communities as a whole, not just the targeted minority.

Highlights

The topic transcends time and is relevant today if not more than ever before.

Holocaust denial takes free speech to the extreme, is historically inaccurate, and deeply offensive.

Examining holocaust denial allows us to see the social impact of anti-semitism and hate crimes.

Every European child is introduced to the Holocaust at a young age through impactful stories.

The issue is not whether the Holocaust can be denied but whether criminalization of denial is right.

There are bounds on liberty - freedom of expression needs to be balanced against fundamental human rights.

If holocaust deniers are left unprosecuted, we extend the arena for hate speech to permeate society.

Holocaust denial is anti-semitic - it allows harmful, subtle views to spread through society.

We must question the motivation behind holocaust denial - does it promote harmful agendas?

Allowing holocaust denial breeds intolerance - it harms community relations.

Holocaust denial causes emotional harm that can escalate to hate crimes.

Gross denial is hate speech that harms community safety and integrity.

Subtle, sophisticated arguments still cause harm by denying the implications of the Holocaust.

Declined tolerance breeds criminal intolerance that diminishes society.

Gross denial should be seen as unlawful hate speech that causes hate crimes.

Transcripts

ladies and gentlemen

it is a pleasure to debate here on an

issue which is as relevant today

if not more than it has ever been this

topic to me

transcends time it is not purely about

the criminalization of holocaust denial

but the social importance of the

incitement of hate crime

we live in a democratic society and in a

world where free speech

is exalted yet when hate crimes still

exist and grow

we must find a balance between the two

holocaust denial

takes free speech to the extreme it is

not only historically inaccurate

but deeply offensive to many communities

in examining the ways in which the

freedom to deny the holocaust

affects democratic societies we can see

the social impact of anti-semitism

and hate crimes it is for this reason

that i oppose the motion

and wholeheartedly support the

criminalization of holocaust denial but

before i continue

it falls upon me to introduce the

proposition our first speaker is

harrison edmunds

a second year history student at

university college

next we host sir richard evans a

renowned historian and author

best known for his expertise in germany

in the 19th and 20th centuries

his most famous works include in defense

of history and the third reich

he was an expert witness for the defence

in the high-profile libel case of david

irving

against the historian professor lipsap

who is our final proposition speaker

a professor of modern jewish history and

holocaust studies at emory university

professor lipsat has altered many books

including the ikwin trial

and denying the holocaust these are

these are your proposition speakers mr

president and they are most welcome

the story of the boy in the striped

pajamas is one familiar

i am sure to the majority if not all of

us present here

the story of a young jewish boy living

on one side of a fence wearing striped

pajamas

and bruno the son of a nazi living on

the other side

as many of you will be aware the story

ends with both young boys dying

gassed in a chamber in what is said to

be auswitch

for me alongside other children's books

such as when hitler stole pink rabbit

this novel represents my first

introduction to the holocaust

being a first-year geography student and

having not taken history since the age

of 16

i knew rather little about the role of

laws in holocaust denial

until recently my knowledge was

primarily defined by what i had learned

reading children's books but that's the

point

every european child is introduced to

the holocaust at a young age

the nature of the ending of the novel to

a young child is shocking and appalling

john boyne the author created fiction

but it draws on the terrible truth and

we teach children

the truth the truth that the holocaust

is an abhorrent

yet undeniable fact of history

however the question to be raised here

is not whether or not

holocaust can be denied but whether

criminalization of holocaust denials is

right

the problem arises when we consider the

laws banning holocaust

obviously entail an infringement of

freedom of expression

while this proposition will evidently

question whether this infringement of

freedom of expression is legally legally

justifiable

i on the other hand in opposing this

motion

believe that the criminalization of

holocaust denial is wholly justifiable

this is not to deny or even undermine

the importance of free speech

but there is a balance to be struck here

there is a plethora of historical moral

and legal arguments to be debated here

and i suspect they will no doubt get

aired

but what i want to concentrate on is the

implications of hate crime in societies

i have no doubt everyone in this room

accepts that there are bounds on liberty

freedom of expression and belief need to

be balanced against the equally

fundamental human rights of others

yet holocaust denial anti-semitism and

hate crime

still exists indicating the need for

legal action

however let's also note and celebrate

the socially progressive change in the

last decades helping us

know what hate crime is and its

pernicious effect on us all

if we are allowed holocaust deniers to

go unprosecuted

we are simply extending the arena for

hate speech

and let's not beat around the bush with

this holocaust denial

is a form of hate speech there's a

common maxim often used in reasoning

that if it looks like a duck swims like

a duck and quacks like a duck

then it is a duck firstly

holocaust denial is anti-semitic plain

and simple i'm no historian

but as you can probably tell from my

accent i do come from yorkshire

the location of the worst pogrom in the

history of britain

the murder of 150 jews in 1159

in york the citizens of the citizens of

york

had chewed and tuned into the blood

libel stories that jews ritually

murdered christian children

the same happened in the 20th century

when more modern anti-semitic ideas

spread

and wildly held incorrect views across

europe that jews should be accountable

for a range of crimes

is arguably part of the reason behind

the holocaust

by denying the horrors of the holocaust

we are effectively allowing

anti-semitic views to permeate our

society

the enormity of the holocaust means a

free and democratic society

is put on permanent duty to prevent to

protect individuals

and to protect minorities democracy

traditionally upholds the values of free

speech

but as the arguments of shamri

chakrabati and liberty have shown

democracy has evolved a democracy is

there

to uphold and protect society yet

if holocaust deniers are left

unprosecuted the freedom of individuals

to live a life

free from hate crime is threatened

sadly anti-semitism can be awfully

subtle

one can hide ulterior motives behind

free speech

and historical arguments my second point

questions the motivation of denial

and once again the point also draws from

my yorkshire background

and some very passionate and assertive

community views about the treatment of

palestinians

i'm talking about the city of bradford a

place where foreign policy with israel

matters more than most

given a large and concentrated pakistani

muslim community

more cars and houses display the

palestinian flag than anywhere else in

the uk it's the words of former mp

george galloway i want to reflect on

he stresses that there is a fundamental

qualitative difference

between the capital h holocaust and

other genocides or wars

the nazis planned and executed a final

solution to remove an entire people

from the face of the earth mr galloway

also points out denial must be followed

by a question of what this means

and whether there is a hidden motivation

for the denial of the holocaust

the motivation behind holocaust denial

simply lies in hurt

or the promotion of a view which is

harmful

the denial of the holocaust is

particularly prevalent in autocratic

societies

and thus we must question the motivation

of holocaust denial in democratic

societies

unveiling underlying political agenda

and hate crime

now for my third point well you cannot

necessarily out the motivation

you can measure the impact on a

community

i'd like to switch the arguments around

a bit what would community relations be

like if atlantic slave trade were denied

ask afro-caribbean communities if they

felt we grossly underplayed british

contributions to slavery

our prime minister would certainly like

to downplay any views on reparations for

the slave trade

and that's my speculative view but let's

focus on more recent events

by implication 911 led in islamophobia

they were failing to deal with strong

emotions created a distorting effect

on how majority communities viewed

muslims

fear fed fear and terrorists exploited

and multiplied this too much tolerance

breeds intolerance in allowing holocaust

denial to go unprosecuted

we are perhaps being tolerant and yet in

doing so

our breeding intolerance i have grave

doubts

about the overall clumsiness in which

democracies have addressed this recent

dilemma

but i also think decency in our

communities can settle this

back to yorkshire again leeds was a

hometown

for homegrown copycat terrorists but is

also my hometown things aren't perfect

in leeds

but i feel i come from a city with a

strong multicultural tradition

there have been jewish and muslim mayors

in the last decade

and growing up in the aftermath of seven

seven kids like me perhaps received a

stronger message than most about

cohesion

and the harm community conflict can

bring

harm is what holocaust denial is about

it's about undermining the safety and

integrity of communities

ultimately it harms all of us it's a

subtle doctrine

but you need to avoid what i call

sophisticated and spacious arguments

people who seek to grossly deny the

qualitative and quantitative

implications

of the holocaust cause harm

they cause hate this can quickly

escalate from an emotional response

to a crime or fear of crime the british

synagogues and mosques

and muslim and jewish cemeteries need

security guards

happens not because arguments aren't

being won but because criminal

intolerance

is tolerated and this is something that

diminishes us all

declined

in summary i'll let lawyers judge the

crime decide where historical

re-examination

differs from distortion but gross denial

should be seen for what it is

hate speech and hate crime it should be

unlawful

i urge you to oppose the motion

you