Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700583_pf.html

I suppose they aren't particularly concerned with things like freedom of speech or academic freedom in Austria. Only state approved history is permitted to be uttered or written. That isn't to say I agree with his comments nor should one need to agree in order to be dismayed by such an action in a supposedly free western nation.

 

Just today I read that the turkish prime minister refused to recognize the genocide of over one million armenians by the turks in 1915-1917.

But somehow I do not think that he risks jail when he wants to visit Vienna.... :roll:

 

He deserves to be arrested, if he is stupid enough to travel to a country which has issued a warrent for his arrest. He deserves to be arrested anyway, but that's another matter.

 

how could he say Hitler knew nothing about the 6mil jews?
How could he deny the holocoust

 

The point isn't whether he is correct in making the statement that the holocaust didn't occur, the point is that in Austria (also Germany and France IIRC) it is a crime to express an opinon that is different than the state approved opinion.
Its' scary to think that Orwell's world of 1984 grows ever nearer.

 

He is possibly correct, according to my old History teacher (Who made studying the Nazis his life's work) there is not a single piece of actual evidence that Hitler knew anything about the Holocaust, no paper trail linking him to it, no order signed by him directly connecting him personally to it. However as he also went on to say, despite this the tight reigns Hitler kept on Nazi Germany make it unlikely in the extreme that Hitler did not know what was going on.

Grieg, it isn't so much a crime to express an opinion that differs to the state's opinion, just on the issues of the Holocaust and the Nazis. These laws are in place for good reasons, to prevent a resurgence of the nationalism that caused WWII and the Holocaust in the first place.

Irving also isn't quite the credible academic he one was any more, in recent years he lost his libel case against the authors of "Denying the Holocaust", he has attended and spoken at neo-Nazi meetings and his views are more than just "Right wing".

 

simon wrote:

Those who would take away your freedom always have "good reasons" for doing so. If the state can decide what is an unacceptable opinion to express on this issue then they can find good reasons for thought control on other issues as well.
Never give the bastards an inch or they'll take a mile.
Making it a crime to express an opinion won't likely prevent a resurgence of nationalism anyway.
It's things like this and peoples inability to perceive the magnitude of the threat that really makes me appreciate the wisdom of America's founding fathers. By recognizing basic rights of individual freedom as being inviolate, no matter what good reasons are put forth, they gave future generations a priceless legacy. Even if many fail to understand it's importance they still enjoy the protection.

 

It's been illegal to deny the holocaust in said countries for dozens of years, yet the restriction has never been expanded to other subjects. Give the bastards an inch and they will take... An inch.

I support the idea of freedom of speech entirely, but it is not realistic to make freedom of speech an unconditional right because there is no way to distinguish between excercising the freedom to voice your opinion and rallying the masses for dangerous causes (such as Islamic fundamentalism or National Socialism).

 

In France there is the Gayssot law which which prohibes "all racist/xenophobic acts".
It clearely states that any negation of the holocaust is criminal.

The text says nothing more, so I don't think one can call really that an "Official version of history".
No historian at all has ever said that that law prevented him from doing his job correctly.In recent years, a well known historian has done s study about the deporting of jews from France, and has come to the conclusion that the numbers were considerably lower than tought.He proved that instead of the "official" 145.000, there had been "only" 74.000.
Today, the 74.000 are "official".

The difference between a negationist and a serious historian is their method of working.


Personally I do not necessarily think that we need the Gayssot law, as I consider that society has enough intelligence and common sense t make it's own opinion.
But I understand that there is a preoccupation and suspicion towards everything that tends to relativize the holocaust, or to present nazism as a normal, legitimate political force.(Which is exactly what negationists like Irving try to prove....)

 

roel wrote:

Don't be so sure. You are talking about a very short period of time. To take the long view is more prudent than to assume that because it hasn't happened yet then it won't. The camel's nose is under the tent..actually the camel has torn a great hole in the tent and has two hoofs inside

There are always conditions...they should exist however only where there is a demonstrated necessity. Freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre where no fire exists however you speak of "rallying the masses for dangerous causes"? Was there any evidence whatsoever that this person was rallying the masses for any cause? Inciting to riot is not protected speech in the US either but this law makes no mention of that...it places prior restraint on unpopular speech and makes it a criminal offense.

 

castelot wrote:

That's an impossibly vague description of the speech/actions that is being criminalized. The interpretation of what constitututes a racist or zenophobic act is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless.

 

Well, I do not consider denying the holocaust as being freedom of speech.
It's not even scientific/academic, I mean he could alsowell try to prove that Napoléon won the battle of Waterloo.

As I already pointed out no serious historian ever said that such laws prevent them from doing their job.(And there is no law against criticising the Gayssot law.... )
Everything can be written or said about the holocaust as long as it is scientific.

However the Irving & friends style negationism isn't scientific at all.
Everything they write concludes that there was no plan to kill the jews, but unfortunately they were not used to labour, and unfortunately there was not always enough to eat, so lots of them died....but hey this was war and the other side wasn't any bether either....

It is an insult towards the victims of holocaust as well as a call to neo nazis that after all Hitler wasn't that bad or wrong....
That's why David Irving is banned from visiting certain countries, including Austria, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa....

I absolutely favour freedom of speech but I think that in some (few)cases when wrong use is being made of that right, the state should intervene, not only in cases of inciting to riot or murder.

For example if some politician says that all blacks are criminals, or if an imam says that Islam will rule the world and all infidels will burn in hell....then I think such people should not be allowed to continue their "speech", even tough they do not directely call for violence.
That is in no way contradictory to the Declaration of human rights.

 

castelot wrote:

Anyone who argues that what he says is incorrect totally misses the point of freedom of speech. It makes no difference if what one says is correct or incorrect. Correct or incorrect is not absolute, it's often times a matter of opinion or based on facts that are themselves open to interpretation.

Even if it's an insult it is none of the state's business.Opinions, even incorrect or wrongheaded ones and the free expression of opinions is what freedom of speech is all about.

Safe speech..speech that everyone agrees upon needs no protection. The 1st Amendment to the US constitution was specifically designed to protect unpopular speech..unorthodox views, unpopular ideas and political dissent.

I'm aware that the the US Constitution does not apply since we are talking about laws in European countries but I wish to make the point anyway. Some of those reading this thread may be unaware that freedom of speech is an important cornerstone of any democratic nation.

Seems like a clear violation of art. 19 to me.

In any case I'm more grateful than ever for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...all you other Americans reading this should be also.

 

But Grieg,when that right is misuse,and that the use of the said right will violate the rights of another,or even threaten and show signs of hostility to the rights of another,is that right still needed?

I am no American,but i understand that freedom of sppech is important to you at least.And i understand that that right was written in the intention to protect unorthodox views which may be right.

However,if the usage of that right infringes on my right by being potentially dangerous to incite revolts and cause deaths,then i do not think that the said Right are fair. I believe what you say about Article 19 works theoretically fine,but like utopian ideals,they fall short of reality.

Is it worth it that this right is protected when people might ,even with the slightest chance,die? Are the rights then more important than life and social stability?

 

You said yourself Grieg (in a different topic) that my right to swing my fist ends where the other guy's nose starts.

My right to freedom of speech therefore surely ends when I start to call for ethnic cleansing (as an extreme example).


But anyway, to the point in hand.

After WW2, Britain had Freedom of speech (and still does, although non-PC stuff will get you in trouble :roll: ). And Britain had a Fascist Party, who wandered around preaching the eradication of Judaism.
To give some context, this was after the Nazi Holocaust had been uncovered.

 

ricky wrote:

Words are not fists. Free speech is protected...actions that may violate the rights of others are treated differently, as one can well imagine.
Before you make analogies to words/action ( words being hurtful to ones feelings etc ) be advised that in crafting the individual liberties guranteed by the Constitution such things were taken into account and the free expression and exchange of ideas was deemed important enough to be worthy of special protection. There are civil remedies available for libel or slander and the state need not intrude into private matters, just as they do not with private speech.

 

kaiser wrote:

I'm assuming you read my previous posts regarding the limitations to free speech eg. inciting to riot..yelling fire falsely in a crowded theatre ?

 

So you do agree there should be limitations?Then what's all this fuss about then Grieg?

 

kaiser wrote:

In order to understand what the " fuss is all about" I suppose you would have to read all the previous posts firstly.
This case isn't about those few recognized limitations to free speech.
There are no such requirements in the law in question.

 

But this is not private speech, AFAIK.