At the most basic level, denying or downplaying a previous genocide increases the odds of a future genocide.
In terms of harm measurement, it's not as straightforward as you would like. Are we judging feelings or violence that results or...?
Next, end goal. You want to squash every individual who denies the Holocaust occurred or downplays it? Good luck, you'll have your hands full in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Iran.
This is a valid line of questioning.
Both genocides happened, both genocides were awful, but it seems like different rules apply to denying different genocides, and that those rules are based on political calculations rather than defensible principle.
"My original comment was about laws against misinformation in Germany. That doesn't mean I endorse or need to defend all free speech laws in all of Europe."
Switzerland passes laws to ban both Holocaust denial and Armenian Genocide denial. The European Court of Human Rights rules the second aspect of the law is a human rights violation.
My complaint isn't about either the laws of Germany or of Switzerland, it is about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, who have jurisdiction across almost all of Europe. The ECHR believes one has a free speech right to deny some genocides but not others.
>The Court began by noting the decisions in its previous cases concerning the denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes. Previous statements have been held to be inadmissible, either as being ill-founded under Article 10(2) when read with Article 17 (citing Williamson v. Germany ECtHR [2019] 64496/17), or otherwise as having incompatible subject matter jurisdiction under Article 17 (Perinçek v. Switzerland ECtHR [2015] 27510/08). The Court reiterated that Article 17 is reserved for extreme cases and on exceptional bases, and should only be used in Article 10 cases if it is “immediately clear” that the statements in issue seek to employ the right to freedom of expression “for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention” (para 37) – such as inciting hatred or violence or aiming to destroy the rights and freedoms listed in the Convention. Any case concerning Holocaust denial must be taken on a case-by-case basis and depends on all the circumstances of that particular case, when it comes to the Court’s decision to either apply Article 17 directly to the applicant’s Article 10 application and declare it incompatible with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, or instead to apply the general law principles under Article 10 and invoke Article 17 at a later stage as an interpretive aid when examining the necessity of any alleged interference by the domestic courts.
[1] - https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%C...
Of course the ECHR is going to claim "this case is unique and isn't inconsistent with our rulings in other cases". Just because they claim that doesn't make it true.
I don't know what I else I could write here that would satisfy you.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar criticisms have been voiced by Ariana Macaya (law professor at the University of Costa Rica): http://www.qil-qdi.org/focus-sur-perincek-c-suisse-la-questi... (she writes in French, but if you can't read French, Google Translate does a pretty good job of it)
It is odd to accuse me of "projecting" in my criticism of a court decision, when law professors express essentially the same criticism. Are they projecting too?
Would you acknowledge that there is something more incendiary about a member of the German Parliament denying the Holocaust in an official Parliamentary speech compared to a foreign national denying the Armenian genocide in Switzerland where the Armenian population is estimated to be 3k-6k? That is the primary conclusion of the ECHR. There is no justification for extrapolating that out to the idea that every instance of denying the Holocaust is worse than any instance of denying the Armenian Genocide which appears to be your conclusion.
[1] - https://njcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/ntm/40-4_Special_Papadopo...
>The crazy amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing to justify denial of a genocide because it’s not your pet genocide wild.
Where did I justify the denial of genocide? This is a wild accusation, especially from someone who wanted evidence that denying genocide was bad.