A TABOO OF OUR TIMES
Nathalie Rothschild
thalie_rothschild/2007/07/a_taboo_of_our_times.htm l
July 18, 2007 7:30 AM
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 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?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/na