Guess all us civil libertarians should agree with Irving when he says "Of course it's a question of freedom of speech..." and join him in hoping that "...within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book,"
It is asolutely a question of free speech. Freedom of speech can't just include statements that we all find acceptable, it must also allow somebody the right to say something that we disagree with or, in Irving's case, something we find completely objectionable, otherwise it isn't freedom of speech at all. I also think in this case that legislating against Holocaust Denial is the wrong way to tackle people like David Irving, because the more Europe tries to supress him the more potent Irving becomes as a symbolic martyr to racist groups around the world rather than the a deluded crackpot he is. So I think Freedom of speech is both better in principle and in practice.
I agree with David Cesarani that the Austria courts had no choice but to punish Irving as not to do so would have been an unacceptable victory for racist and anti semitic groups around the world. However it is I believe naïve and optimistic to believe as Cesarani and today’s Guardian do that ‘Neo-Nazis everywhere have lost an icon’. In fact it could be argued that to imprison Irving only increases his symbolic value to Neo-Nazis. As David Cesarani shows Irving was already disgraced and discredited by Deborah Lipstadt in the English Courts before this case brought him back into the spotlight.
Personally, I think Daniel Finkelstein moving piece in the Times today has it right.
It is difficult, even for me now, born in safety, free to bring up my sons as Jews, sitting at a desk typing my article in civilised Britain, it is difficult not to feel anger, rage at Irving. It is difficult not to wish him behind bars. And I do feel rage. But I do not wish him behind bars, not for giving his opinion, not for delivering a lecture, however warped and horrible his opinion is. I still believe in the power of truth. And my belief in truth is what separates me from Irving. The admirable author Deborah Lipstadt had it right when she destroyed Irving in the courts, challenging his methods as a historian, undermining his reputation, demonstrating his falsehoods and his distortions. It is always tempting to fear the liar and believe, as Mark Twain did that “A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on”. But I have more faith than that. I believe that by allowing free exchange, by allowing anyone to assert anything, the truth will triumph,provided that its friends are vigilant and relentless. So, no, David Irving should not be in jail. We can do better than that. I wish I could tell you that the Irving trial is the only way in which my belief in the power of truth is being tested. But it isn’t. Across the Middle East now, Holocaust denial has become commonplace. It was not difficult last week to spot the banners reading “God Bless Hitler”. The President of the Palestinian Authority denied the full truth of the Holocaust in his PhD. I wish I could tell you that never again will anyone be able to kill millions of Jews, but as we speak Iran is well down the nuclear path and threatens to eradicate Israel. David Irving is the least of our troubles. But through it all we must hold fast to this: that we must always be ready to meet force with force, but lies — lies we fight with truth.
Incidently, Deborah Lipstadt opposes Holocaust Denial prosecutions, her own blog http://lipstadt.blogspot.com is well worth checking out for more information on the case and David Irving.
Here is an Deborah Lipstadt's reaction to the sentence and her thoughts on Holocaust Denial prosecutions.
Why then was I not delighted with the court sentence handed down in Vienna on Feb. 20? I am writing this sitting in the shadow of the Vatican, preparing to teach a course on the Holocaust at the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Jesuit university affiliated with the Vatican. For centuries the church censored Jewish books, forcing Jews to remove anything the church authorities deemed objectionable to Christianity. Even prayers were censored.
We Jews, who have suffered from censorship, should not be supporting it. Moreover, I don’t believe censorship is efficacious. It renders the censored item into forbidden fruit, making it more appealing, not less so.
Here in Europe, as in many quarters in the United States, this discussion has been joined with the debate over the Danish cartoons. Various Jewish organizations have pointed out — and rightfully so — that the Islamic world, which is so vigorously protesting the insult they perceive in these cartoons, is ignoring its own double standard. It has lived quite comfortably for many years with a spate of anti-Semitic cartoons. Some are well nigh pornographic and worthy of what one might find in Der Sturmer, the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper.
While it is legitimate to argue that there is a difference between cartoons and the murder of millions of people, it is hard to argue for laws against Holocaust denial but demand that the Danish cartoonists’ freedom of speech be protected. It suggests a double standard.
More importantly, there is a far better way to fight Holocaust denial than to rely on the transitory force of law. When David Irving forced me to go to court to defend my freedom of expression, my most important weapon was the historical truth. We have truth and history on our side. From both an ideological and strategic perspective, those are far more powerful weapons than laws, especially laws that seem to counter the ideal of freedom of expression.
The best way to counter Holocaust deniers is to teach as many people as possible this history. That is why courses on history of the Holocaust have proven so popular and important. Students who take those courses will never fall prey to the David Irving-like distortions.
Jewish tradition teaches that the word emet, truth, composed as it is from the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, encompasses everything. The truth of the Holocaust is terrible and painful, but it is the truth and that is the most potent weapon anyone could want.
A powerful and thought provoking article on the David Irving sentence by Melanie Phillips. She argues that is wrong to view this as an issue of freedom of speech and links to the Danny Finkelstein article in The Times and the David Cesarani one in The Guardian.
"His conviction and imprisonment in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial has provoked the general response that, odious as his views are, he should have been allowed to express them so that they could be exposed and defeated in open debate, this being the democratic way. The issue is therefore principally one of freedom of speech. A fine example of this viewpoint was furnished by Danny Finkelstein"
...
"A point of view which is in itself admirable. But in this case, it is surely misplaced. For the issue raised by the Irving case is not one of freedom of speech. It is incitement of racial hatred. In the Guardian on the same day, David Cesarani got to the heart of the matter."
I must admit she did make me question my own assertion in this thread that this was a question of free speech. I think she puts her finger on the problem and the 'profound confusion' at the heart of this debate when she says:
"The concept of ‘Holocaust denial’ is unfortunate, because in itself it muddles the issue and lends itself to the argument that freedom of speech is threatened. It would be far better to prosecute the Irvings of this world under the much clearer laws against incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence."
This really nails the problem with Holocaust Denial prosecutions and why it is regretable that Irving wasn't on trail for incitement to violence or racial hatred (and the link to the Civitas website provides a very strong case).
While researching David Irving I happened upon what appears to be an excellent site for examining (and refuting) the claims and methods of Holocaust denial.
Oliver Kamm, David Aaronovitch & Francis Wheen have sent an open letter to the Guardian complaining about its retraction of an interview with Noam Chomsky. The key issue is denial of the Srebrenica massacre.
This could possibly have warranted a new thread, but I place it here so it can be viewed in the context of the Holocaust denial discussion.
I've got a lot of sympathy for this. Certainly the Holocaust is far from the only genocide in recent history, as such there's no reason for it not to be sensibly compared with others, and much that does go under the heading of 'genocide' is no such thing. Those among impdeccers who fall on the "freedom of speech" side of such debates will find themselves nodding along too.
'It's very improper, very impertinent, to say that there's only one right way to understand and discuss the Holocaust.'
'I defend people's right to deny the Holocaust and to utter lies - so long as the rest of us remain aware that what they're saying is a lie.'
It is rare to hear these words today, when so many are keen to censor Holocaust denial. But Felipe Fernández-Armesto, professor of history at Oxford University and author of Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, which aims to set the record straight on historical facts and how we understand them, thinks that open, lively debate is the best way to challenge Holocaust deniers:
'The great defence against falsehood is a rational, critical and accurately informed intelligence, not censorship. When people lie about the Holocaust we should stand up to them with the facts, rather than being frightened of debate.'
Fernández-Armesto is concerned about the pious and prescriptive way in which the Holocaust is discussed today - where anybody who falls out of line soon finds that 'tolerance' has its limits. 'It's very improper, very impertinent, to say that there's only one right way to understand the Holocaust and discuss it', he says. 'I feel very strongly that debate and comparison enliven our understanding of everything.'
...
'The real problem for me', says Fernández-Armesto, 'is when the Holocaust is regarded as being in a category which is quite unique, and you're not allowed to compare it with other acts of genocide because it is somehow morally special, as if it's worse to massacre Jews than it is to massacre blacks or whites or Irish, or any other race. That is very problematic'.
...
'The thing is, I don't believe there was any attempted genocide in Kosovo', responds Fernández-Armesto, 'despite what ministers and the media said. What happened was that two communities inflicted massacres and atrocities on each other, without the conscious, planned intention of exterminating an entire people as the Nazis did'.
...
Fernández-Armesto disagrees: 'We are making the Holocaust this unique event in history and that is dangerous.' He recognises that 'clapped-out organisations like New Labour' often have to 'fall back on the abuse of language and rhetoric to justify their aims', pointing out that during the Kosovo conflict 'Robin Cook used the word "genocide" six times in a five-minute BBC interview, following the principle from the Scam-man's Handbook: if you repeat nonsense often enough, people will believe it'.
But now he sees the problem as one of Holocaust uniqueness - because there is a danger we will become 'dangerously complacent' about the possibility of another holocaust: 'The more you crack the Holocaust up to be unique the more you desensitise people to the danger of it happening again. If it's unique then it's not likely to happen again - the problem is that it's not unique and it is likely to happen again.'
12 comments:
Quick question for the group:
Should Holocaust denial be illegal?
(Feel free to include reference to the proposed incitement to racial hatred legislation.)
David Irving pleads guilty.
Guess all us civil libertarians should agree with Irving when he says "Of course it's a question of freedom of speech..." and join him in hoping that "...within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book,"
(Civil liberties thread can be found here.)
It is asolutely a question of free speech. Freedom of speech can't just include statements that we all find acceptable, it must also allow somebody the right to say something that we disagree with or, in Irving's case, something we find completely objectionable, otherwise it isn't freedom of speech at all. I also think in this case that legislating against Holocaust Denial is the wrong way to tackle people like David Irving, because the more Europe tries to supress him the more potent Irving becomes as a symbolic martyr to racist groups around the world rather than the a deluded crackpot he is. So I think Freedom of speech is both better in principle and in practice.
There is no martyrdom in this pathetic denouement
David Cesarani
Guardian Comment
February 22, 2006
The Austrian courts have done the world a favour in exposing David Irving as a noxious opportunist and a coward
I agree with David Cesarani that the Austria courts had no choice but to punish Irving as not to do so would have been an unacceptable victory for racist and anti semitic groups around the world. However it is I believe naïve and optimistic to believe as Cesarani and today’s Guardian do that ‘Neo-Nazis everywhere have lost an icon’. In fact it could be argued that to imprison Irving only increases his symbolic value to Neo-Nazis. As David Cesarani shows Irving was already disgraced and discredited by Deborah Lipstadt in the English Courts before this case brought him back into the spotlight.
Personally, I think Daniel Finkelstein moving piece in the Times today has it right.
The test that David Irving set me: do I really believe in the power of truth?
It is difficult, even for me now, born in safety, free to bring up my sons as Jews, sitting at a desk typing my article in civilised Britain, it is difficult not to feel anger, rage at Irving. It is difficult not to wish him behind bars. And I do feel rage. But I do not wish him behind bars, not for giving his opinion, not for delivering a lecture, however warped and horrible his opinion is. I still believe in the power of truth. And my belief in truth is what separates me from Irving.
The admirable author Deborah Lipstadt had it right when she destroyed Irving in the courts, challenging his methods as a historian, undermining his reputation, demonstrating his falsehoods and his distortions. It is always tempting to fear the liar and believe, as Mark Twain did that “A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on”. But I have more faith than that. I believe that by allowing free exchange, by allowing anyone to assert anything, the truth will triumph,provided that its friends are vigilant and relentless.
So, no, David Irving should not be in jail. We can do better than that. I wish I could tell you that the Irving trial is the only way in which my belief in the power of truth is being tested. But it isn’t. Across the Middle East now, Holocaust denial has become commonplace. It was not difficult last week to spot the banners reading “God Bless Hitler”. The President of the Palestinian Authority denied the full truth of the Holocaust in his PhD. I wish I could tell you that never again will anyone be able to kill millions of Jews, but as we speak Iran is well down the nuclear path and threatens to eradicate Israel.
David Irving is the least of our troubles. But through it all we must hold fast to this: that we must always be ready to meet force with force, but lies — lies we fight with truth.
Incidently, Deborah Lipstadt opposes Holocaust Denial prosecutions, her own blog http://lipstadt.blogspot.com is well worth checking out for more information on the case and David Irving.
Here is an Deborah Lipstadt's reaction to the sentence and her thoughts on Holocaust Denial prosecutions.
Why then was I not delighted with the court sentence handed down in Vienna on Feb. 20? I am writing this sitting in the shadow of the Vatican, preparing to teach a course on the Holocaust at the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Jesuit university affiliated with the Vatican. For centuries the church censored Jewish books, forcing Jews to remove anything the church authorities deemed objectionable to Christianity. Even prayers were censored.
We Jews, who have suffered from censorship, should not be supporting it. Moreover, I don’t believe censorship is efficacious. It renders the censored item into forbidden fruit, making it more appealing, not less so.
Here in Europe, as in many quarters in the United States, this discussion has been joined with the debate over the Danish cartoons. Various Jewish organizations have pointed out — and rightfully so — that the Islamic world, which is so vigorously protesting the insult they perceive in these cartoons, is ignoring its own double standard. It has lived quite comfortably for many years with a spate of anti-Semitic cartoons. Some are well nigh pornographic and worthy of what one might find in Der Sturmer, the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper.
While it is legitimate to argue that there is a difference between cartoons and the murder of millions of people, it is hard to argue for laws against Holocaust denial but demand that the Danish cartoonists’ freedom of speech be protected. It suggests a double standard.
More importantly, there is a far better way to fight Holocaust denial than to rely on the transitory force of law. When David Irving forced me to go to court to defend my freedom of expression, my most important weapon was the historical truth. We have truth and history on our side. From both an ideological and strategic perspective, those are far more powerful weapons than laws, especially laws that seem to counter the ideal of freedom of expression.
The best way to counter Holocaust deniers is to teach as many people as possible this history. That is why courses on history of the Holocaust have proven so popular and important. Students who take those courses will never fall prey to the David Irving-like distortions.
Jewish tradition teaches that the word emet, truth, composed as it is from the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, encompasses everything. The truth of the Holocaust is terrible and painful, but it is the truth and that is the most potent weapon anyone could want.
Deborah Lipstadt blog
A powerful and thought provoking article on the David Irving sentence by Melanie Phillips. She argues that is wrong to view this as an issue of freedom of speech and links to the Danny Finkelstein article in The Times and the David Cesarani one in The Guardian.
"His conviction and imprisonment in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial has provoked the general response that, odious as his views are, he should have been allowed to express them so that they could be exposed and defeated in open debate, this being the democratic way. The issue is therefore principally one of freedom of speech. A fine example of this viewpoint was furnished by Danny Finkelstein"
...
"A point of view which is in itself admirable. But in this case, it is surely misplaced. For the issue raised by the Irving case is not one of freedom of speech. It is incitement of racial hatred. In the Guardian on the same day, David Cesarani got to the heart of the matter."
I must admit she did make me question my own assertion in this thread that this was a question of free speech. I think she puts her finger on the problem and the 'profound confusion' at the heart of this debate when she says:
"The concept of ‘Holocaust denial’ is unfortunate, because in itself it muddles the issue and lends itself to the argument that freedom of speech is threatened. It would be far better to prosecute the Irvings of this world under the much clearer laws against incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence."
This really nails the problem with Holocaust Denial prosecutions and why it is regretable that Irving wasn't on trail for incitement to violence or racial hatred (and the link to the Civitas website provides a very strong case).
Here's the link to the full article, it is well worth reading. The Jailing of David Irving
While researching David Irving I happened upon what appears to be an excellent site for examining (and refuting) the claims and methods of Holocaust denial.
http://www.nizkor.org/
Oliver Kamm, David Aaronovitch & Francis Wheen have sent an open letter to the Guardian complaining about its retraction of an interview with Noam Chomsky. The key issue is denial of the Srebrenica massacre.
This could possibly have warranted a new thread, but I place it here so it can be viewed in the context of the Holocaust denial discussion.
It's long but worth a look if you have time.
Chomsky, The Guardian and Bosnia
hat tip: harry's place
More on holocaust denial here.
I've got a lot of sympathy for this. Certainly the Holocaust is far from the only genocide in recent history, as such there's no reason for it not to be sensibly compared with others, and much that does go under the heading of 'genocide' is no such thing. Those among impdeccers who fall on the "freedom of speech" side of such debates will find themselves nodding along too.
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto on the Holocaust
by Brendan O'Neill
Spiked
26 January 2001
'It's very improper, very impertinent, to say that there's only one right way to understand and discuss the Holocaust.'
'I defend people's right to deny the Holocaust and to utter lies - so long as the rest of us remain aware that what they're saying is a lie.'
It is rare to hear these words today, when so many are keen to censor Holocaust denial. But Felipe Fernández-Armesto, professor of history at Oxford University and author of Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, which aims to set the record straight on historical facts and how we understand them, thinks that open, lively debate is the best way to challenge Holocaust deniers:
'The great defence against falsehood is a rational, critical and accurately informed intelligence, not censorship. When people lie about the Holocaust we should stand up to them with the facts, rather than being frightened of debate.'
Fernández-Armesto is concerned about the pious and prescriptive way in which the Holocaust is discussed today - where anybody who falls out of line soon finds that 'tolerance' has its limits. 'It's very improper, very impertinent, to say that there's only one right way to understand the Holocaust and discuss it', he says. 'I feel very strongly that debate and comparison enliven our understanding of everything.'
...
'The real problem for me', says Fernández-Armesto, 'is when the Holocaust is regarded as being in a category which is quite unique, and you're not allowed to compare it with other acts of genocide because it is somehow morally special, as if it's worse to massacre Jews than it is to massacre blacks or whites or Irish, or any other race. That is very problematic'.
...
'The thing is, I don't believe there was any attempted genocide in Kosovo', responds Fernández-Armesto, 'despite what ministers and the media said. What happened was that two communities inflicted massacres and atrocities on each other, without the conscious, planned intention of exterminating an entire people as the Nazis did'.
...
Fernández-Armesto disagrees: 'We are making the Holocaust this unique event in history and that is dangerous.' He recognises that 'clapped-out organisations like New Labour' often have to 'fall back on the abuse of language and rhetoric to justify their aims', pointing out that during the Kosovo conflict 'Robin Cook used the word "genocide" six times in a five-minute BBC interview, following the principle from the Scam-man's Handbook: if you repeat nonsense often enough, people will believe it'.
But now he sees the problem as one of Holocaust uniqueness - because there is a danger we will become 'dangerously complacent' about the possibility of another holocaust: 'The more you crack the Holocaust up to be unique the more you desensitise people to the danger of it happening again. If it's unique then it's not likely to happen again - the problem is that it's not unique and it is likely to happen again.'
Post a Comment