Its a difficult balance. Where there is an established body of historical evidence that genocide occured a court having the discretion to fine genocide deniers is justified, but locking them up is not.

One area the author doesn't touch is the mental suffering deniers inflict on the relatives (or race) of people slaughtered in a genocidal act. Historians like anyone else are not free to write anything if it definitely hurts those already kicked.

As to genocide of aborigines - yes hunting expeditions did go out to exterminate aborigines in Australia's past - with logistical support amounting to bounties. This is a national shame on par with the mass killing by Asian nations of different races, castes, religious or ideological groups.

Furthermore given the collaboration and war crimes of the many Swiss, Austrians and Germans aginst Jews in WWII its justified that they continue to atone for this by enforcing legislation thats prevents British authors from further exploiting inbred Germanic anti-Semitism.

Fighting fire with fire is an additional reason. Rightwing groups have been known to host, fund or encourage denialist authors and the Turkish Government likewise. Anti denialist governments have a right to combat group and State sponsored pro-denialists.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

If you want History with an end read the Book of Revelation.
Theres the end.
It wont budge one fraction from what John has written...no matter what anyone thinks:)

The logic of this article is so obvious. The people and governments who have, and who are attempting, to restrict the free expression of opinion are setting the foundation for a new variant of the very tyrannies and injustices that they claim they are trying to protect people against. This pattern reflects the same mentality of those who led the Medieval and Renaissance era Inquisitions . . . . "We have the absolute and unchanging truth for all time, and we must suppress any 'heresy' which denies that truth".
God help us all if that way of thinking continues to spread.

If "Pete" wants to fight "fire with fire", he has every right to do so on the basis of objective evidence and reason. He does not have the moral right to do so by soliciting the coercive power of the state to suppress the opinions of others, no matter how foolish those "other" opinions may be. There is a fundamental difference between merely expressing an opinion about an historical event, and actually personally ADVOCATING offensive violence and genocide against another group of people. It should be manifestly obvious that the infliction of "mental" suffering . . . as opposed to actual PHYSICAL suffering . . . is purely subjective. Islamic fanatics are constantly using the excuse of "mental and emotional suffering" to justify the suppression of opinion whenever they get "offended" by anyone possessing the temerity to question the misogynistic death-cult ideology of Islamic Jihadism. We have a right to be protected from PHYSICAL attack or specific and immediate threats of violence to our person. We do not have a moral right to be protected from opinions that we simply don't like.

Another example of people taking on things that they don't have to. I mean,how many people bother 'denying' events like the Holocaust and what happened to Armenians?

The answer is, only a very few nutty intellectuals trying to attract attention to themselves. Most people don't know and don't care.

There must be better subjects for consideration out there.

These historians should be very careful if they come to New South Wales. Unlike most english speaking countries, where truth is an absolute defence against a charge of libel, in NSW, to defend a charge of libel you must not only demonstrate that what you said was true, but also that it is in the public interest (as decided by the judge) that the truth should be revealed.

Again, if you assert that asians have an average IQ that is greater than africans, as happened recently, you are liable to be shouted down in lectures and barred from campuses by the administration. Notwithstanding that rational analysis makes it very unlikely that such different groups would have EXACTLY the same IQ, current political correctness requires that their IQ's must be regarded as equal, and that this fact is beyond dispute. Please note, I am not making any claims one way or the other, I am simply noting the situation.

If further proof were necessary, we need only look at the first amendment to the US constitution, which provides that:

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting....the freedom of the press"

If I were you, I would be very careful about publishing there anything that the Supreme Court regards as being outside its protection.

Surely the only conclusion that we can come to is things have not changed much since the days of the inquisition, except that they would no longer burn you at the stake.

And people think we are ruled by elected politicians, not judges. What a laugh!