I see a few problems with laws like this, beyond the obvious problem that it's an abhorent abrogation of free speech. And speech is already subject to too many restriction in Canada.
First, I look at it from the perspective that supporters of such a bill simply aren't interested in knowing the truth about the Holocaust. They like the version of history that's been settled on, which is coincidently the version written by the victors as it always is, and they don't want any uncomfortable questions or evidence to emerge that might undermine that perspective. Many groups have managed to extract power from the current understanding of the facts about the Holocaust, and have imposed a cowing guilt and extraction of recompense from others. Few ever give up power once they're grasped it.
Second, I see the possibility that many people truly believe that we've arrived at the true reckoning of the events surrounding WW2. Any further questions will only draw us away from the truth, and they believe questions about the Holocaust will only cause harm to innocent people today. It seems a naive perspective, but I can accept many people hold it.
Many liars have been exposed over the years claiming to have had horrifying experiences during WW2, like Joseph Hirt, who are simply taken at their word as they profit from their victimhood as prominent speakers only to admit to lying later in life. If it's illegal to deny aspects of the Holocaust, it's illegal to question the accounts of liars as long as they generally align with the accepted narrative, and it's made exceedingly difficult to expose these types of charlatans. The same can be said of governments. The legal truth just becomes a pack of lies clinging to the decaying husk of truth, and we'll have removed our ability to pare it down to what's actually real.
It's a bad law, as are virtually all laws that limit speech. Most people already accept that the Holocaust happened, that it was terrible, and would best be avoided in the future. Most disagreements surround the details, the figures and motivations of the groups involved. There's no harm in sharpening our understanding of the truth about that.
Besides which, I'll never be told by government what I'm allowed to say or think. I'm open to persuasion when it comes to speech and thought, but never mandate.
I see a few problems with laws like this, beyond the obvious problem that it's an abhorent abrogation of free speech. And speech is already subject to too many restriction in Canada.
First, I look at it from the perspective that supporters of such a bill simply aren't interested in knowing the truth about the Holocaust. They like the version of history that's been settled on, which is coincidently the version written by the victors as it always is, and they don't want any uncomfortable questions or evidence to emerge that might undermine that perspective. Many groups have managed to extract power from the current understanding of the facts about the Holocaust, and have imposed a cowing guilt and extraction of recompense from others. Few ever give up power once they're grasped it.
Second, I see the possibility that many people truly believe that we've arrived at the true reckoning of the events surrounding WW2. Any further questions will only draw us away from the truth, and they believe questions about the Holocaust will only cause harm to innocent people today. It seems a naive perspective, but I can accept many people hold it.
Many liars have been exposed over the years claiming to have had horrifying experiences during WW2, like Joseph Hirt, who are simply taken at their word as they profit from their victimhood as prominent speakers only to admit to lying later in life. If it's illegal to deny aspects of the Holocaust, it's illegal to question the accounts of liars as long as they generally align with the accepted narrative, and it's made exceedingly difficult to expose these types of charlatans. The same can be said of governments. The legal truth just becomes a pack of lies clinging to the decaying husk of truth, and we'll have removed our ability to pare it down to what's actually real.
It's a bad law, as are virtually all laws that limit speech. Most people already accept that the Holocaust happened, that it was terrible, and would best be avoided in the future. Most disagreements surround the details, the figures and motivations of the groups involved. There's no harm in sharpening our understanding of the truth about that.
Besides which, I'll never be told by government what I'm allowed to say or think. I'm open to persuasion when it comes to speech and thought, but never mandate.