HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS NOT A CRIME

Ok, this is a tough one but it needs tackled head on. Readers will know that I am a resolute supporter of Israel. I have nothing but admiration for the State of Israel and in particular for the unbelievable bravery of its men and women in the face of rampant Islamic intolerance. I also believe that the events leading up to the Holocaust show human nature at its most malign, and what happened in those Concentration camps was EVIL incarnate. We all have seen the dark images that brought such shame to all those who participated in such unspeakable acts.

HOWEVER, I believe that Holocaust denial is not a crime. I profoundly disagree with the fact that in Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and several other European countries, as well as in Israel, it is a crime publicly to dispute the official version of Holocaust history. It is certainly wrong, it is assuredly misguided, it is wilfully ignorant of historical reality, but it is not a crime, a theft. I like the summary over on the Volokh Conspiracy that...

"Rather, it seems to me that speech must be defended on the grounds that letting the government restrict speech ultimately causes more harm than protecting it. And it seems to me that letting the government decide that certain historical claims are illegal will ultimately do much more harm than good."

I agree. I have no time for that wretch David Irving but the fact that he has been jailed for three years by an Austrian court for denying the Holocaust of European Jewry is intrinsically wrong. He should be laughed at, ridiculed, almost felt sorry for in his profound stupidity. But this denial of free speech is not liberty's finest hour - Holocaust notwithstanding.

Comments

[dangerouslysubversivedad]

Its still the equivalent of going to Mecca during the Hajj and shouting 'Mohammed was a paedophile' during the Devil Stoning though. Irving KNEW he was doing something illegal in Austria when he made those speeches there. Whether this particular Austrian law is an ass or not, he still deliberately broke it.

[Henry94]

It is hard to think of a single person more discredited in his chosen field than David Irving. I do agree that a jail sentence for saying something ridiculous is excessive but there are a lot of injustices on my list that I would have to get through before I gave a second thought to his plight.

In fact it might be appropriate to simply refuse to believe he has either been tried or sentenced. It's all just propaganda!

[Ross]

"In fact it might be appropriate to simply refuse to believe he has either been tried or sentenced. It's all just propaganda!"

Brilliant! :)

I have to agree with David on this. We know that holocaust deniers are cranks because it has been so well documented that if someone disbelieves it they can be assumed to have an agenda. The only reason that this is the case is precisely because people have examined the events critically, otherwise acknowledgement of the genocide would be a matter of faith rather than a matter of reason.

Banning holocaust denial makes about as much sense as banning moon landing denial, if we respond to charlatans by refusing to let them have their say rather than rebutting them then a lot of people will start to think that the wool is being pulled over their eyes.

[Madradin Ruad]

I agree that Holoaust denial should not be a crime David. However it was the law and if this man knowing broke the law, then he should be prepared to pay the appropriate penalty.
Otherwise we could all claim exemption from any law with which we disagreed.

[Peter]

I agree. I understand the historical reasons for the law in these countries but think it's time for repeal afer 60 years.

And it just gives the Islamofascists another weapon - they have pointed to this law in the context of the Danish cartoons and claimed that there's one law for the Jews and another law for the Muslims.

[Steve]

Totally agree DV. I have said something similar on my blog this morning.

[Alison]

I do think its the law that is at fault here and needs urgent review - especially now. Irving broke the law and knew he was doing so - he has the consequences to deal with. Peter's points, especially the last one are also excellent.

[andy]

Good post David, particularly so as no-one could remotely describe you as having anti-semite motivation.
On a personal level its hard to be upset by a reprobate like Irving being put in jail, but it seems to ban a version of history sixty years after the event is a complete over reaction.

Perhaps even more interesting is the situation in France, where I believe denying the Shoah, or the Armenian genocide, will land you in jail. Could lead to some unusual situations if Turkey ever gets into the EU...

[Ultonian Scottis American]

It would seem that Irvine would have a good case before the European Human Rights Court.

[Madradin Ruad]

How come USA ? He knowingly broke the law.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

MR:

I'm no expert on the EU High Court, or whatever its called. But one does exist. Does it have the power to overturn a sentence of a participating country?

Yes, Irvine broke the Austrian law. I don't know exactly how Austria got jurisdiction, or how or why Irvine ended up in the Austrian docket.

But let me give a US example.

In Texas, there was a criminal law against sodomy. Two men decided to break that law. Somehow they were caught by the police. Note that it was not an issue of public lewdness. I personally think that these two men deliberately got themselves arrested in order to challenge the law.

They didn't dispute the facts, were found guilty, and it was upheld by the highest Texas court of appeals.

This was then appealed to the Federal Courts, and recently the highest appeals court, the US Supreme Court, ruled that the Texas law was unconstitutional.

The two Texas men broke the law of Texas. Irvine broke the law of Austria.

Again, I am unclear on how the European appeals court functions, but if it has jurisdiction, it could find the Austrian law a violation of Irvine's human rights. There may already be precedent from a similiar case.

Any European court experts aboard here?

[Madradin Ruad]

Yes, Irvine broke the Austrian law. I don't know exactly how Austria got jurisdiction, or how or why Irvine ended up in the Austrian docket.

He made the speech in Austria.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

MR:

Are you saying that you know as little as I about how the European Court of Human Rights works?

[Madradin Ruad]

No - I was answering your question as to why he was tried in Austria.

[Hugh Green]

USA

I'm unfamiliar with the case law, but Ronald Dworkin says here
that:

They say that western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European convention on human rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe for what they are: violations of the freedom of speech that that convention demands.

So I would infer that the present understanding is that Austria's Holocaust-denial laws pass muster.

[daytripper]

he was already banned from entering the country after being kicked out in 1989 (i think) he was apparently jovial about his return to the country at the behest of all his friends and wife. he thought it a bit of fun.
there was a warrant for his arrest already. he's quite obviously a fool.
as for the law. its there to protect the rights of living suvivors. once they are gone holocaust denial can only gain in strength.

and it should be remembered that with rights (such as Freedom of speech) come responsibilities.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

MR:

Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13

Article 10 - Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

====================================

So Irvine needs to file an appeal based on Austria's violation of his human rights under Article 10. I didn't say he would prevail.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

The whackos are using this abridgement of free speech to justify their killing and torching of other people's property in response to the cartoons.

[dangerouslysubversivedad]

Oh my. MR and I agree on something. I think I need to go and lie down.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

OK, here's what I've found:

Article 17 - Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

=========================================

In LEHIDEUX AND ISORNI v. FRANCE (29/06/2004), the ECHR ruled that Art 17 trumps Art 10 in regards "Holocaust Denial":

"(C)learly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – whose negation or revision would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17...

In order that Article 17 may be applied, the aim of the offending actions must be to spread violence or hatred, to resort to illegal or undemocratic methods, to encourage the use of violence, to undermine the nation’s democratic and pluralist political system, or to pursue objectives that are racist or likely to destroy the rights and freedoms of others (see the United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 16, § 23).
Therefore, the requirements of Article 17 are strictly scrutinised, and rightly so.

=============================================

Now, how "Holocaust Denial" leads to the "destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein" of anybody else is beyond me.

But using this shield, I guess that the UK can shut down any anti-partionist publication and jail the usual suspects for inciting racial hatred, etc.

[AgainsTTheWall]

Hmmm. Holocaust deniers/revisionists dont get much respect here do they?

For anyone who is interested in the arguments involved this is an excellent introduction by Jurgen Graf - a leading writer on the subject (which David Irving isnt btw)

http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jglife/jgtoc.htm

[Colm]

What sort of person would give respect to a Holocaust denier ?

[Michael Turley]

I'd be interested to know what the reaction would have been on this website had the EU forced Germany, Austria, et al to repeal their holocaust-denial laws prior to the issue of Irvings trial becoming apparent (e.g. EURO-WEENIE ANTI-SEMITISM ALLOWS HOLCAUST DENIAL BUT CENSORS MOHAMMED CARTOONS SHOCKER).

[AgainsTTheWall]

Colm why dont you read the article I linked - then you could perhaps comment on the points that revisionists make. Even if you dont agree with the conclusions Im sure you would find it interesting

[Colm]

revisionist is a very open word but notice I only mentioned deniers, and sorry I have no intention of reading the convoluted 'research' or of respecting those that seek to deny the Holocaust ever took place. I admit i haven't opened your link and I don't know what it says but if it seeks to deny the Holocaust or play down Jewish deaths I don't want to.

Whatever will we hear of next ! Someone unearthing proof that Africans were never taken to the US as slaves but all voluntarily arrived there only after applying for well paid jobs as housekeepers!