-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 18, 2007 11:45:41 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A Rothschild Princess Speaks Out on Holocaust Denial
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?
Nathalie Rothschild
July 18, 2007 7:30 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nathalie_rothschild/2007/07/
a_taboo_of_our_times.html
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 spiked, the online magazine I work for).
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?
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om