Nathalie Rothschild: A taboo of our times

zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Thu Aug 16 10:06:34 EDT 2007


-- 



http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nathalie_rothschild/2007/07/a_taboo_of_our_times.html




Nathalie Rothschild

A taboo of our times

More and more countries are outlawing Holocaust denial, but is it 
better to silence the deniers or expose them as liars?

Holocaust and genocide denial is the most forceful taboo of our 
times. Numerous countries now have laws against Holocaust denial and 
recently an EU directive has made "publicly condoning, denying or 
grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and 
war crimes" an offence punishable by law.

But might the institutionalisation of this taboo have dire 
consequences - not just for the cranks and charlatans who, often 
motivated by racism and bigotry, distort historical truth, but also 
for free, open and academic debate? Some believe that anti-denial 
legislation will stifle debates about history, as well as political 
protest and free thinking.

If the establishment of historical truths is left to the decree of 
politicians, EU bureaucrats and judges, then surely we will end up 
with legally-defined truths that one questions at one's peril. To 
permit the expression of views only if they have an official seal of 
approval looks like an affront to vigorous inquiries into history, 
and to freedom of expression.

The question of whether genocide denial should be an offence was 
addressed in a lively debate at the Institute of Contemporary Arts on 
Monday night. It was chaired by Francesca Klug, professorial research 
fellow at the London School of Economics' Centre for the Study of 
Human Rights. Expressing their opposition to the new EU directive 
were Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust 
studies at Emory University in Atlanta, and Frank Furedi, professor 
of sociology at the University of Kent (and a regular contributor to 
[? something missing here]  David Cesarani, research professor in 
history at Royal Holloway College, spoke in favour of the 
legislation. He argued that there is a causal relation between 
speech, incitement and deeds.

Mr Cesarani said he is frustrated by "liberals with a small l" who 
"bury their heads in the sand" when it comes to acknowledging that 
unfettered freedom of expression can lead to "hate crimes" and 
historical distortion. He seemed to imply that soft liberals are 
somehow themselves "in denial" about the dangers of the Enlightenment 
ideal that was enshrined in the American Bill of Rights - freedom of 
expression - blinded as they are by their own reliance on the media.

I couldn't help thinking that perhaps Mr Cesarani has buried his own 
head in the sand. For a defence of free speech with no ifs or buts, 
regardless of whom it offends, is conspicuous by its absence in the 
mainstream media and public debates today. If "liberals with a small 
l" have gone soft on anything, it is on clampdowns on free speech, 
which they frequently justify as well-intentioned measures to protect 
vulnerable sections of society.

Today there is a growing tendency to divide society into those who 
cause offence, those who are easily offended, those who can be easily 
ignited by offensive words and those who need to police the public in 
order to minimise such speech. And this tendency has guided the EU 
directives against genocide denial.

When it comes to genocide denial, as distinct from Holocaust denial, 
it is in fact perfectly legitimate to question how helpful it is to 
label certain atrocities as "genocide", "crimes against humanity" or 
"war crimes", and to scrutinise the facts and figures of such 
atrocities. For example, some people protested against Nato's bombing 
of Yugoslavia in 1999 and questioned America and Britain's 
presentation of the Serbs' actions in Kosovo as a genocide. Might 
such protesters be found guilty of the crime of denial in the future? 
In order to establish historical truths, and to strongly counter 
those who distort it, everything needs to be up for debate.

Ms Lipstadt is one of the best-known warriors against Holocaust 
denial. She has meticulously exposed the lies, fabrications and 
bigotry of those who distort the truth about the Nazi atrocities. She 
was famously the successful defendant in the David Irving v Penguin 
and Lipstadt libel trial. Yet when, in 2006, Irving was imprisoned in 
Austria for comments he made in a speech in that country in 1989, she 
opposed the sentencing. Rather than silencing Holocaust deniers, 
Lipstadt said last night, legislation outlawing denial actually gives 
them unwarranted publicity and, ironically, turns them into free 
speech martyrs.

Furthermore, Holocaust denial laws feed into the very conspiracy 
theories heralded by the deniers: the despicable view that Jews 
control the political and judicial system and that they play on their 
victimhood and "historical guilt" to manipulate the system in their 
favour.

Ms Lipstadt argued that the only way to stand up to Holocaust deniers 
is to expose them for the liars they are - and in the process build a 
stronger case for truth - rather than shutting them up and locking 
them in a cell. Holocaust and genocide denial laws suggest that those 
of us who believe that Irving and his ilk are indeed vile charlatans 
don't have the confidence or the evidence to oppose them. We do, 
Lipstadt insisted.

Mr Furedi pointed out that the Holocaust has become a moral absolute 
for our relativist times; the historical event that every other 
atrocity, natural disaster or perceived injustice is measured 
against. The EU laws, he argued, encourage competitive claims-making 
to sanctify memory. So when they were first introduced, Poland, 
Slovenia and the Baltic states lobbied for the inclusion of a crime 
of denying, condoning or trivialising atrocities committed in the 
name of Joseph Stalin in the new law. When France criminalised denial 
of the Armenian genocide, Turkey threatened to criminalise denial of 
the French genocide in Algeria.

And it is not just states, but also various minority groups, 
environmentalist campaigners, animal rights activists and 
anti-abortion groups that fall back on terms such as "Holocaust" and 
"genocide" to give moral force to their causes. The overall effect, 
Mr Furedi argued, is that we lose sight of the historical context of 
the Holocaust and rather than preserving or honouring its memory, we 
obscure and denigrate it by turning it into a political prop.

Today, calling someone a "denier" has become a way of shutting down 
debate. But if we are denied the right to hear all sides of an 
argument, or to compare and contrast different events, we cannot make 
a coherent and forceful case for truth. And if we leave history in 
the hands of the powers-that-be, each of us runs the risk of putting 
ourselves in the docks - because considering the ever-widening 
definitions of offensiveness, who is to say that our own opinions 
won't one day, offend someone somewhere?






More information about the Zgrams mailing list