See Nina Gilbert's article here.
Well, here it is: Israeli Knesset approved unanimously a bill that allows the Israeli governement to pursue extradition of Holocaust deniers for prosecution. Let's take a moment and examine this.
In Germany, a law exists to deal with what they refer to as "Auschwitz Lüge" (the Auschwitz Lie). Simply put, defamation and denigration of the character of deceased persons is punishable by law. According to the German government, the statement that Jews were not persecuted during National Socialism is clearly false. The mass murder of Jews in the gas chambers of the Third Reich is a historical fact that has been proven by countless witness statements and documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research.
When dealing with Holocaust denial, German criminal law clearly finds itself in conflict with the right to express one's opinion. While recognizing that prohibiting the "Lüge" represents a limitation of the right to free expression, German jurisprudence holds that the injury to the personal honor of those defamed (Jewish citizens) weighs so heavily that it takes precedence over freedom of expression. And by the way - incitement in connection with Holocaust denial is also a punishable offense in Germany.
Germany is not the only nation that considers denial of the Holocaust to be beyond the limits of free speech. France passed a law in 1990 that makes it a criminal offense to dispute the facts of the Holocaust as recognized by French courts or the 1945 international war crimes tribunal held in Nuremberg. A similar law exists in Italy. On an international level, the European Union Council of Ministers agreed in March 1996 on a "Joint Plan of Action Against Racism and Xenophobia" that would cover both denial of the Holocaust and a wide range of other hate crimes.
I confess I am still unsure of how to think here. Clearly this issue is too close to home for me to form an objective opinion. I also confess that for me, deniers (and their manifestations of anti-semitism and racism) fall under two categories: the merely ignorant ones (increasingly hard to find in this age of information) and those who plainly lack decency, dignity and human empathy (the resentful ones, mostly). I live in the United States, and I have a degree in Journalism, which means that I have been indoctrinated in the sanctity of freedom of speech. It is the old dilemma: the balance between free speech and the protection/rights of the individual...
In the case of the new Israeli bill, free speech seems to be threatening preservation of Holocaust history. Is that so?
August 5, 2005
ISRAEL PASSES BILL AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It seems ridiculous that, after so many years, most of Europe would still be holding up any of the "values" that Hitler promoted- among them a repression of free speech. Yes, it is horrible that these people would continue to deny that this atrocity happened, not to mention stupid, but to deny their rights to continue saying it (it's not like anyone has to LISTEN, right?) takes us right back to Fascism.
Granted, living in the United States as I do, I don't know what it would be like to live under an over-half-century long shadow like this. 90% of the horrible things my ancestors did was well over a century ago, and the other 10% history books gloss over in a way I find truly appalling... Executive Order 9066, anyone?
I think that these laws are counterproductive, if their goal is freedom- if their goal is honor- if their goal is truth.
I am against these laws. The problem is that there are not very many sources which deal with deniers effectively and competently. Even dedicated books (like van Pelt's "Case for Auschwitz") are incomplete, and even on the best sites (like THHP) there are some errors. I think that the European govts should decriminalize denial and simultaneously call their best scholars to seriously debunk denier arguments, especially the ones they have been publishing in last years. They would need to write a sort of "white paper". This won't convince most deniers, but it will prevent the wide spread of the denial after such a decriminalization, because competent analysis by the historians will leave no doubt in any reasonable mind about the craziness of denial.
Gisela said:
"I live in the United States, and I have a degree in Journalism, which means that I have been indoctrinated in the sanctity of freedom of speech."
So what's the dilemma? Either one believes in free-speech or one does not. Free Speech is not about freedom for speech that you agree with but for all speech, agree or not.
It's about the optimistic belief that the people can sift wheat from chaff and examine the issues themselves, not just believe what they are told by authorities and mass-marketers. Democratic societies that believe otherwise are hypocritical and doomed to failure.
To quote Pink Floyd, all we have to do is keep on talking.
Sergey Romanov said:
"I think that the European govts should decriminalize denial and simultaneously call their best scholars to seriously debunk denier arguments, especially the ones they have been publishing in last years. They would need to write a sort of "white paper". This won't convince most deniers, but it will prevent the wide spread of the denial after such a decriminalization, because competent analysis by the historians will leave no doubt in any reasonable mind about the craziness of denial."
Of course Denial should be discriminalized, as suppression of taboo ideas is the best argument there is for studying them, by default. But let the "marketplace of ideas" determine their fate. Creating some purple-robed body of Court Historians to divine the truth is not going to convince anyone who actually thinks with his noggin instead of using it to hang his hat. It is not a path towards intellectual integrity and enlightenment, just a new form of orthodoxy and an escalation of Orwellianism as an insurance policy in case anybody fails to buy the goods of the Court Historians. Sure, anything but Groupthink will seem utterly crazy--it's supposed to seem that way.
Think about it.
Scott - I do believe in free speech, of course. I was merely pointing out that sometimes, and at least for me, that belief is tested against the backdrop of our personal experiences and expectations. Free speech is absolutely necessary and fundamentally right, but it is not without conflicts. It's not as though anyone ever said it was easy...
And Scott, your comment on Sergey's comment - I have some questions on that, but I will post them later on today.
I think it does take a lot of patience and tolerance to accept free-speech that one might disagree with and even considers morally or factually wrong, especially when those views are packaged in an insensitive or hateful package.
So I agree. I don't think it is easy, but to curb free-speech, even if only for specific exceptions, is fraught with all sorts of dangers and amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
~ Scott Smith
Sergey said:
<< I think that the European govts should decriminalize denial and simultaneously call their best scholars to seriously debunk denier arguments, especially the ones they have been publishing in last years. >>
I'd love to see that happen. Except I think the results would be very different from the ones Sergey expects...
Scott said:
<< So what's the dilemma? Either one believes in free-speech or one does not. Free Speech is not about freedom for speech that you agree with but for all speech, agree or not. >>
Absolutely correct, free-inquiry and plurality of oppinions should never be curtailed. There is of course a fine line between that and defamation, which is to a great extent what prof.Lipstadt did to D.Irving, as in accusing him of having consorted with Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists, damaged archival microfiches and other false claims.
Luca,
Very interesting comment, given the fact that on page 72 of her book History on Trial (did you read it?), Prof. Lipstadt actually acknowledges that after her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (the book which resulted in Irving's failed libel suit against her) was published, she learned that the report on Irving's association with Hamas and Hezbollah was indeed false.
On the same page, Judge Gray repeatedly tells Irving that it is common in libel cases for the defense not to defend every single defamatory statement, but what else could Irving do? I mean, the man had no real case against Prof. Lisptadt, since by calling him an anti-Semite and a fascist she was in no way defaming him - he is indeed an anti-Semite and a fascist.
If you'd rather have a different source to the trial, you can always read the official transcripts, either at Emory University's website (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html) or at David Irving's own (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/index.html)...
What other false claims again?
Gisela said:
<< Very interesting comment, given the fact that on page 72 of her book History on Trial (did you read it?), Prof. Lipstadt actually acknowledges that after her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (the book which resulted in Irving's failed libel suit against her) was published, she learned that the report on Irving's association with Hamas and Hezbollah was indeed false. >>
Gisela, no I didn't know about her acknowledgement and I haven't read Prof. Lipstadt's book. To be perfectly honest with you I would not waste my time or my money on her stuff. I have read books by far more competent people, like Hillberg and Browning.
David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. The lack of documentary evidence prompted him in "Hitlers War", to propose a bold thesis, that
Hitler had been unaware of the H, until at least 1943(if memory serves me right). IMO, that was the
beginning of the end for him. As he embraced the Leuchter report, things got downright ugly. It is
evident that he has been a victim of a sucessful defamation campaign which culminated in defeat at the
Lipstadt trial.
I very much doubt you ever read any of Mr.Irving's work. He may not have a degree Gisela, but he is very good and his books are very well researched. Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself. For example, in a recent book by well known american military historian Carlos D'este, which i own, one can find under essays and sources: "A controversial but excellent account of the war[...] is David Irving, Hitler's War[...]".
J.Keegan had this to say about Irving and Lipstadt.
"David Irving has many of the qualities of the most creative historians, he is certainly never dull, Professor Lipstadt by contrast seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be, few other historians had ever heard of her before this case, most will not want to hear from her again." - John Keegan in the Telegraph
In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to play
the victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract when they dumped publication of his *Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich* based on Lipstadt's smears. He could have easily shown that Lipstadt did not check any soures when she called him a fellow-traveller with terrorists and Hamas in her book, and then just laughed off the label "Holocaust
Denier." By trying to prove that he was not a Denier he let his enemies define this term and exposed himself to scrutiny that most authors and historians could never have completely withstood either.
In fact Irving was so dangerous precisely because he is not a revisionist; he had earned credibility over the last
forty-plus years, so if he gave any respectability to Revisionism it had to be nipped in the bud. They played Irving like a fiddle though because he probably reacted predictably and assisted with his own discrediting.
All things considered, Irving was heavily outgunned but still gave Lipstadt and her team a good run for their money.
Best,
Luca
Luca -
Please see new posting for my reply...
Gisela
Post a Comment