Holocaust denial
The issue of the Holocaust is terribly sensitive. The greatest civilization the world has ever seen witnessed one of the most important and cultured nations of that civilization sink into a frenzy of industrialized murder.
Not only that, there were plenty of like-minded people in neighbouring countries only too happy to lend a hand.
As a result, millions died.
The historical record is clear and unambiguous. People are alive who witnessed the events. The bones lie in silent testimony for all to see.
For all that we have people who insist it did not happen, or that it was not as extensive as portrayed, or that it was not managed from the highest levels of Hitler's Germany.
In many nations, to voice such opinions is illegal:
British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.
He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
The reasoning is that Holocaut denial is equivalent to anti-Semitism:
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.
I have no love for those who deny the Holocaust. I don't think they are qualified to teach history, for example. But as in all free speech issues, the line must be drawn between advocating violence and mere stupidity.
Can merely denying that the Holocaust occurred be equivalent to advocating violence?
If I were speaking to a crowd on neo-Nazi skinheads, and I gave a fiery speech on how the Jews controlled the education system and had foisted this Holocaust lie on us in order to gain support of a guilt-ridden West to advance their own agenda, could that trigger violence without actually advocating that Jews be attacked?
Unfortunately, in some circumstances, it can. So I see the problem authorities in these countries face. How do you craft a law to manage violent speech when the speech does not have to be blatantly violent to have a violent effect?
I want to make it clear that I'm not planning to come down on the side of free speech without some consideration of the complexities of the situation.
But I am going to come down on the side of free speech anyway. Well, mostly.
First, on the principle of the matter. Free speech is not free if there is a cost to be paid for unpopular speech. Is the Holocaust a special case? Special cases are dangerous, since eventually everyone wants to be treated specially. Each special case limits speech further.
Are we willing to give Muslims special status in the matter of speaking of the Prophet? Most would say that we would not, because we can see where that road leads. But some countries have already taken a step on that road with Holocaust denial laws.
Second, on the matter of the practical effect. I have to think that for every David Irving punished for merely attempting to contradict the historical record, a martyr is created. The suspicions among those predisposed to believe that the Jews are the power behind government and media are confirmed. The ranks of Irvings supporters are strengthened, not weakened, when you attack Irving with the law.
Free speech that we disagree with is best attacked with more speech, not less.
Easy to say, isn't it?
But I can be wrong on this one. Maybe the Holocaust is a special case. Maybe denying it is to open the way to allow it to happen again. Maybe denial needs to be punished. I'll admit I'm still torn on this.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Hate speech laws are a weapon that can be turned anywhere. They are the slipperiest of slopes.
Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle at February 21, 2006 09:32 AM
I think the reason why the Holocaust denial laws were a special case is that they were written in the presence of people who actually witnessed it, on both sides. And as more Holocaust survivors and witnesses pass into history, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that a nation could order the deliberate slaughter of millions of people. (There is documentary evidence in the Nuremberg records, but people still refuse to examine it.)
The anti-Holocaust laws in Austria are particularly strong because Austrians are too painfully aware of their own history: they know that Hitler formed his anti-Semitic views in the Viennese political environment, and they don't want that kind of environment to flourish again.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at February 21, 2006 09:39 AM
The Holocaust denial laws are not just to protect 'feelings' but to ensure that it happens 'never again'.
Looking at Iran, about to get nuclear weapons, and at the same time dabbling in official Holocaust denial, it becomes readily apparent what Holocaust denial can lead to.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at February 21, 2006 09:59 AM
While still somewhat torn on this myself, I can help but draw parallels with the "Khartoon" incidents.
At the end of the day, free speech is free speech, and any infringement on it, no matter how well intended, starts us down a slippery slope.
There are other ways to deal with 'Deniers', such as libel laws as well as simply countering with the facts...
Posted by: Phaedrus at February 21, 2006 10:02 AM
Free speech is not negotiable.
Debate the holocaust deniers, if you feel like it, or ignore them. Don't jail them.
Btw, was it 4, 5, or 6 million jews murdered? How many non-jews were murdered? Oh, you don't know...
(For the record, my best guess is that 5 million jews, and 1 million non-jews were murdered by Hitler regime.)
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 21, 2006 10:08 AM
You've raised a paradox I've noted myself before, Steve: the notion of causal responsibility in the law.
The metaphor I always use is shouting in a mountain pass. You shout loudly enough in enough mountain passes, it doesn't matter *what* you shout -- you will eventually start an avalanche. And thanks to today's communications web, it's possible for one person "shouting" on one side of the world to reach so many people, so fast, that inevitably *somebody* will react badly to it.
(Ironically, the current caricature brouhaha is actually a very poor example of this, because it was not the cartoons per se that caused these riots; it was deliberate manipulation by a small cabal of imams and mullahs intended to promote and artificially aggravate the "insult" contained in the cartoons that sent rioters into the streets. Whether the riots would have happened "naturally" can still be argued either way, however.)
What can any artist of conscience do when somebody tells him, "If this work is successful enough, the odds rise close to 100% that someone, somewhere, will be moved to fatal violence by it"? And what can any legislator who believes in the principles of free speech, free argument, and freedom of conscience do in a legal climate of ever-more-skilled and ever-more-persuasive arguments designed to shift criminal responsibility away from the actor, and onto external stimuli and triggers?
Free speech has always had practical limits, as the old shout-FIRE-in-a-crowded-theatre cliche shows. It may be that Holocaust denial (which, let us not forget, does constitute attempting to promote a proveable falsehood as truth in a way that can cause direct harm to others -- something we've already outlawed in libel and slander laws) should fall into that category.
I'm against "hate crimes" as an aggravated version of normal crimes; to my mind the law should control only actions, not whatever opinions may inform or drive those actions. Murder is murder whether you did it for money, personal revenge, or ideology; let's keep the law out of people's brains. But there must always be *some* regulation of speech, however slippery a slope that is to stand on, because what we hear and see from other people *does* influence us, however hard we may wish it didn't. To allow anyone to say anything ends in riot and anarchy; to allow no one to say anthing but Newspeak ends in totalitarianism. The slippery slope goes on two sides, and walking the middle line will never be easy.
And regulation doesn't have to mean outlawing. Let this man teach Holocaust denial all he likes -- but make sure any university knows its government support will be withdrawn if it employs him as a history teacher. One man's right to free speech does *not* entail another man's duty to pay for it.
Posted by: Stephen J. at February 21, 2006 10:08 AM
Ironically, it is the academics whom were sued by Irving that are coming to his defense this time, and rightfully so, as academics are particularly sensitive to any idea not being allowed to be discussed in a free society, even unsavory and inflamatory ones, just as the case of the university professor at St. Mary's who posted the cartoons and faced the wrath not only of Muslims but the administration of the university.
The Globe covered this story yesterday, and of note, is that the academic and advocates of free speech in Germany and Austria, see the need for free speech, but also caution, that as of yet, neither Germany and Austria are ready to deal with the issues involved, as they still feel too close to their past (even though it has been over sixty years since the war), and that the collective consciences of their nations is still largely seared by the memories of the war.
As a European who has lived in Canada since 1967 when I came here at age nine, and as a child of parents who lost their homes in the blitz and family members in the conflict, I have empathy for those who never want to forget the past. But there is a difference between not forgeting and forgiving. We can all diligently remember and be advocates to continue to remember, but we must find ways to actually walk in forgiveness and understanding.
My own opinion on the matter is, that until Germany no longer pays the restition and reparations foistered on her as a pre-condition to full status as a nation with the treaty of May 1952 by the Western Powers, then Germany will never fully recover her soul as a nation, equal to the other nations in the world.
The Luxembourg Agreement, the repararations agreement between West Germany and Israel, obligated the West German government to pay three billion German marks to the State of Israel and 450 million marks to various Jewish organizations.
The calculations were believed to be, that the eventual payment would total some four billion marks. The ensuing renegotiations of the agreement over the years has reached unbelievable proportions.
By 1963, West Germany had paid out 20 billion marks, and by the end of 1984 in excess of 70 billion. In late 1987 the West German parliament approved an additional 300 million marks in "restitution to the victims of National Socialist crimes." The West German government estimated that by the year 2020 the payoff would total 100 billion marks which, which at our exchange rates, would be the equivalent of $50 billion US dollars.
West Germany's and now a united Germany's lucrative and historically unparalleled payoff to Israel is a legacy and permanent reminder of Germany's catastrophic defeat in 1945 and subsequent domination by foreign powers.
When will there be enough "paying for the sins of the fathers" (biblical reference here) for the state of Germany? When will there be an end to the collective guilt on the consciences of Germans not even born at the time of these atrocities? When will we truly forgive the nation of Germany, and seek to see her restored as a full member of the nations, without the constant guilt manipulation of the horror of the holocaust and the war?
It is only in forgiveness and restoration, and in embracing the one who has made restitution, and believe me, we know we can never bring back the dead, but in finances, technology and materiel, Germany has made restitution to Israel. It is time for it to end. It is time for Germany to be treated as an equal.
Then and only then will Germany embrace fully democratic ideals, such as the free speech issue that censures those who want to discuss openly the war and the history of the Nazis. Germany will never "grow up" and "mature" until it allows the free exchange of ideas, but it will never mature unless it is freed willingly from the "collective guilt" wrapped up in the never ending "reparations to Israel".
By the way, I love Israel and Germany and have friends in both countries.
Regards,
Samthemacman
Posted by: samthemacman at February 21, 2006 10:21 AM
A lot of semantic and data confusion makes up such discussion. The best solution to such matters is precision and accuracy, and certainly not putting a cap on which themes can be historically explored.
The 6 million figure was arrived at when the iron curtain had closed objective data (precise government records) for a large proportion of the number in question. After Poland opened up, I recall reading in the paper that a commission of mostly Jewish scholars had been set up to study the newly opened archives comparing pre-and post-war residencies, emigration, and the missing. I cannot recall if the results have been released.
Yet, such studies seem to be placed under the label of 'revisionism', when in fact, as similarly applied to any issue, they are simoly a duty to attempt to establish precice historical date as was not possible while that other fascist regime, the Soviet Bloc, sat on most of this data. The truth should never be afraid of itself, and scholarship owes the truth, to the best of its available possibility, to succeeding generations.
Posted by: brock at February 21, 2006 10:53 AM
Freedom of Speech is not for just that which one is comfortable. That's meaningless. Freedom of Speech is especially for that which one would totally disagree, that which infuriates one.
Without this broad, almost but not quite limitlessness, Freedom of Speech doesn't exist.
As far as extremely noxious ideas, such as Holocaust denial, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" as famed US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said in a famous free speech case. In other words, beat a bad idea with better ideas, not censorship.
(And for Johan i Kanadi, the generally accepted estimates by most credible historians is in the range of 10.5 million people murdered in the Nazi concentration camps.
That figure includes approx. 6.5 million Jews; approx. 1 million Gypsies; German and European anti-Nazis; Jehovah's Witnesses; homosexuals; mentally and physically handicapped ("life unworthy of life" in the barbaric Nazi words, the logical endpoint of any legalized euthanasia policy); Soviet prisoners of war; captured resistance fighters; etc. Anyone who incurred the hatred of Naziism or who opposed Naziism was fodder for the Nazi death machine.)
Posted by: at February 21, 2006 11:19 AM
What a lot of people overlook, is that German Nazism wasnt just a political movement. It was also a religious movement, a historical society, (each branch of the SS had its own group of archaeologists to prove the German history of the area they occupied). The Nazi's new religion and (highly fictionalized) history allowed its followers to form a new moral code, that was totally foreign and unexpected to the other European powers.
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 11:52 AM
Like most of the others here, I'll come down on the side of free speech.
After all, this is a fairly conservative place on the web, and it is the traditional role of us conservatives to advocate for freedoms and personal responsibility.
I also worry about the stifling of reasoned debate and genuine scholarship.
And I would very much like to thank Samthemacman, I had no idea that Germany was still paying reparations!
Posted by: Albert at February 21, 2006 12:38 PM
You can not legislate guilt with greater success than you can common sense. Requiring people to pay for the sins of their fathers does not engender a sense of responsibility, but one of resentment. Resentment at internationally imposed reparations and restrictions is what led to the rise of the National Socialists in the first place.
Posted by: Buck Nekkid at February 21, 2006 01:31 PM
Free speech should cover denying the holocaust. It is simply a lie and lies are exposed by the truth. Lying or teaching a lie should not be illegal and can be countered by truth, or by the courts in the case of slander or libel. Some lies are based on ignorance, misunderstanding or being misinformed. Even Irving in the end admitted that he had been wrong. Let's keep it simple.
Posted by: Herman at February 21, 2006 05:18 PM
And regulation doesn't have to mean outlawing. Let this man teach Holocaust denial all he likes -- but make sure any university knows its government support will be withdrawn if it employs him as a history teacher. One man's right to free speech does *not* entail another man's duty to pay for it.
Posted by: Stephen J. at February 21, 2006 10:08 AM
To extend Steve's view to publications:
Publishing news about the anti-holocaust theory or the actions of persons and misfortunes of those who try to push it, is reasonable information.
Any publishing of the argument itself must be subject to fines and penalties large enough to be a real deterrent. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 23, 2006 02:45 PM
 
|
|
