Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis explores Holocaust denial cases in New Zealand, revealing ethical and collective comprehension issues.
In almost every other Western democracy, ipso facto Holocaust denial is a crime, but not in New Zealand. There are two particular cases I want to discuss briefly and then speculate on why these matters reveal something very odd about the New Zealand collective psyche. The first case concerns the way in which a student is being protected by the institution and the real issues are misunderstood or repressed. The second case has to do with a professional historian whose master’s thesis argued that there were no gas chambers in Nazi-occupied lands and that less than a million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. In each instance, the important point is not the denial itself but the failure of most New Zealanders, as individuals and as a collectivity, to comprehend the ethical, moral, and emotional implications involved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norman Simms (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: