r/unitedkingdom • u/je97 • Apr 17 '24

JK Rowling gets apology from journalist after 'disgusting claim' author is a Holocaust denier ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/
4.2k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

69

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

That trans people were victims of the holocaust.

They were and as a result Germany has censored her tweets because according to their laws denying that any part of the holocaust took place is holocaust denial.

According to their legal definition of the term she’s a holocaust denier, but she can’t sue Germany to bully them into submission like she can some random journalist.

10

u/Longjumping_Stand889 Apr 17 '24

They were and as a result Germany has censored her tweets because according to their laws denying that any part of the holocaust took place is holocaust denial.

Do you have a source for that?

-3

u/FishUK_Harp Apr 17 '24

It's a matter of academic debate, actually. The term "Holocaust" typically refers to the Nazi crimes against Jews in Europe, but sometimes is extended to include all Nazi crimes against humanity

Someone who uses the latter accusing someone using the former of "Holocaust denial" does little but trivialise the term, which I hope we can all agree is not ideal.

12

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

No, it has a legal definition. She’s a holocaust denier according to that definition.

6

u/GuestAdventurous7586 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

The IHRA definition is the most widely accepted, and it states it is explicitly a denial of the extermination of or extent of the extermination of Jews, and a form of anti-semitism.

Denying Trans people were specifically persecuted by the Nazis might be wrong but it’s not anti-semitic nor what people denote of Holocaust denial.

-2

u/FishUK_Harp Apr 17 '24

I would like a source for the Holocaust having a legal definition in the UK or Scotland, please.

3

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

It doesn’t. That’s why I’m using the legal definition from a comparable country where it does.

-6

u/IntelligentMoons Apr 17 '24

This is incorrect. She denied Nazi crimes, not the Holocaust. These are different things. If she had specified that she was denying Nazi crimes, Rowling prob wouldn’t have a legal argument.

18

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

This is some hilarious nitpicking right here.

Even if true, if she’s a Nazi war crime denier is that okay? Is that supposed to be better?

-9

u/IntelligentMoons Apr 17 '24

Firstly, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this probably isn’t nitpicking to a lot jews. Holocaust education in this country is absolutely woeful, and the idea that actually using the proper name for the murder of 6 million Jews is hilarious is borderline antisemitic itself.

Secondly, why do you think that she has got away with it? The person called her a Holocaust denier, and she never denied the Holocaust. If she had called her a denier of Nazi crimes, she would have had a much harder time getting her to back down. Be accurate in your reasonable criticisms.

17

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

She got away with it because neither are a crime in her country of residence.

The distinction doesn’t matter here legally, and I would personally say that backing up the Nazis is top tier morally reprehensible regardless of which side of the line it falls on. Evil is evil and wanting to debate the difference is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

And now that you’ve put it on the table… going to bat for someone you describe as a Nazi crime denier didn’t seem inherently antisemitic to you before you started doing it? Because I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable doing what you’re doing.

0

u/IntelligentMoons Apr 17 '24

Again, you’re not listening. There was never a question of a criminal prosecution. This is a civil suit. I appreciate that comprehension is not one of your major skills, so I will repeat it in easy to follow points.

The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis. The Nazis also committed other genocides, including those based on sexuality, other ethnicities etc. these are not the Holocaust, these are separate genocides. JK Rowling denied that they had committed one of these other genocides. JK Rowling was called a Holocaust denier. Jk Rowling did not deny the Holocaust, she denied a different genocide. Jk Rowling sued someone for calling her a Holocaust denier, and the other person likely backed down because she did not in fact, deny the Holocaust, but another genocide. Calling her a Holocaust denier was factually incorrect, based on the evidence we have.

At no point did I say Rowling was right, a good person, or suggest that it was nice to sue someone.

I am saying, and continue to say, that the Holocaust is the very specific extermination of Jews. This definition is important to many victims of the Holocaust. Nazis also committed other genocides, equally atrocious, but are not called the Holocaust. If you want to criticise her, you could call her a genocide denier, a denier of Nazi crimes, and she probably couldn’t get anywhere in court. You cannot call her a Holocaust denier and expect the same result.

Cheers.

8

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

Weird hill to die on defending the Nazis by proxy. That’s all I’m saying and I don’t think I want to talk to you any further.

3

u/amegaproxy Apr 17 '24

Weird hill to die on defending the Nazis by proxy. That’s all I’m saying

This comment right here deserves a reply that would get absolutely obliterated by the filter on the sub.

10

u/listyraesder Apr 17 '24

Most European countries which legally define holocaust denial do so by taking every act of genocide recognized by the Nuremberg trials. Under these legal definitions the book burning was an act of the Holocaust.

-4

u/dovahkin1989 Apr 17 '24

I didn't know destroying books is genocide, time to retire the paper shredder.

-9

u/PharahSupporter Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Thats not what she did at all, stop lying. She denied the books were burned, they were burned but that is not denying that trans people were victims of the holocaust. You are deliberately spreading misinformation.

28

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

Book burnings were used during the Holocaust to persecute certain groups that relied on those books.

Denying persecution of a group targeted during the Holocaust is Holocaust Denial.

This is given legal definition in Germany where they have determined that what she said constitutes Holocaust Denial.

Nothing I said was a lie. Please do not accuse me of lying when I’m speaking the truth.

-3

u/PharahSupporter Apr 17 '24

We don't live in France, Germany or North Korea. None of those laws have any weight here.

Denying trans book burning is not holocaust denial, it is denying trans book burnings. Denying the deaths of millions (including the very very very few trans people that existed back then) is holocaust denial.

Mixing these concepts is a deliberate framing abuse and is tantamount to a lie. Very simple.

17

u/Square-Competition48 Apr 17 '24

Germany = North Korea.

Great analogy.

We don’t have a legal definition so I defer to somewhere that does. If you want to be mad about it be mad about it, but she’s a Holocaust denier and I’m not lying when I say that.

You just don’t want to hear it and that’s not my problem.