Case 1:
Insulting a religious Deity by drawing a cartoon, defended by the argument of "freedom of speech" despite upsetting many many many Muslim people.
Case 2: Iran leader faces Holocaust case
Someone denying the Holocaust, is demanded to be trialed at a German court for denying the Holocaust which upset the West.
Although these cases are quite different in the details, to me, they are broken down to the basic facts that some ignoramus with significant media exposure expressed an idea which offended a lot of people. the only difference i see is that in Case 2, its gotten so offensive to deny the Holocaust that an international law has been issued. Considering the position of Iran and their hatred for Jews and Israel, it is understandable, in my opinion, that he and others of the same background and environment would develop the perspective of denying the Holocaust.
Hatred when confronted with Sympathy will often dismiss it, for the purpose of continuing its own existence. These two emotions rarely co-exist.
To allow the west to tout freedom of speech in Case 1 but enforce the law centred around "the denial of the Holocaust" in case 2 shouts hypocrisy, which really annoys the crap out of me.
This raises another interesting question (interesting in my mind anyway), What is the significance of denying the Holocaust? I don't fully understand the depth of significance of the Holocaust and thus probably am missing the reason why the global community gets their knickers in a knot when anyone denies it happened. In my mind its like an American (who hates Japanese people) denying they used the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, I'd think he'd be an idiot and move on. It makes no difference that a person denies an event that happened, it still happened and nothing they say can change that fact. Unlike the Holocaust, the radiation fallout of the A-Bomb is an almost everlasting physical remnant of the event, while in the case of the Holocaust there is no such obvious empirical evidence.
Insulting a religious Deity by drawing a cartoon, defended by the argument of "freedom of speech" despite upsetting many many many Muslim people.
Case 2: Iran leader faces Holocaust case
Someone denying the Holocaust, is demanded to be trialed at a German court for denying the Holocaust which upset the West.
Although these cases are quite different in the details, to me, they are broken down to the basic facts that some ignoramus with significant media exposure expressed an idea which offended a lot of people. the only difference i see is that in Case 2, its gotten so offensive to deny the Holocaust that an international law has been issued. Considering the position of Iran and their hatred for Jews and Israel, it is understandable, in my opinion, that he and others of the same background and environment would develop the perspective of denying the Holocaust.
Hatred when confronted with Sympathy will often dismiss it, for the purpose of continuing its own existence. These two emotions rarely co-exist.
To allow the west to tout freedom of speech in Case 1 but enforce the law centred around "the denial of the Holocaust" in case 2 shouts hypocrisy, which really annoys the crap out of me.
This raises another interesting question (interesting in my mind anyway), What is the significance of denying the Holocaust? I don't fully understand the depth of significance of the Holocaust and thus probably am missing the reason why the global community gets their knickers in a knot when anyone denies it happened. In my mind its like an American (who hates Japanese people) denying they used the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, I'd think he'd be an idiot and move on. It makes no difference that a person denies an event that happened, it still happened and nothing they say can change that fact. Unlike the Holocaust, the radiation fallout of the A-Bomb is an almost everlasting physical remnant of the event, while in the case of the Holocaust there is no such obvious empirical evidence.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home