Musing on Holocaust Denial

My recent post on Nick Griffin and the BNP sparked an interesting debate on Twitter yesterday regarding the limitations on freedom of speech, and it wasn't too long before the subject of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's recent court case soon came up. In case you are unfamiliar with his case, The European Court of Human Rights has recently rejected a claim from the French "comedian" who claimed his right to freedom of speech was denied when he was convicted and fined for making anti-Semitic comments, and for repeated denial of The Holocaust. The court upheld a decision by a French court in 2009 and said it would not hear controversial comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's appeal against the conviction because the show that led to it was "unmistakably negations and anti-Semitic in nature."

Now, before you read any further, I'd like to ask you to vote in the poll below. Votes are absolutely anonymous, and no personal information is recorded.

 

Should Holocaust denial be a criminal offence?

Yes No Undecided  

 

 

Thanks. Putting the poll aside, for now, let's look specifically at Holocaust denial. There are several countries in which it is a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust. 

 

The denial of crimes against humanity is against the law in no less than thirteen European countries, alongside Israel. These laws are much younger than Holocaust denial itself. Most of them were made in the late 1980s or 1990s, as a counter-measure against the rise of white supremacist in a European generation which had no experience of the war. During most of post-war history, more than 40 years, Holocaust denial has been legal in all countries of the world. It was only in 1990 that the French government enacted the Gayssot Law, which declares questioning the scale or existence of any crimes against humanity a crime. This was the first European statute explicitly outlawing denial of the Holocaust.

 

Most of these laws outlaw denial of all crimes against humanity, not limited to the ones committed by the Axis of World War II, but also explicitly (as in Poland, Slovakia, or the Czech Republic) or implicitly, including crimes by Communist regimes, and other crimes often emphasized by Holocaust deniers. Only in Romania is the law exclusively limited to Holocaust denial. Further, and perhaps, unsurprisingly, Israeli is the only country in which legislature refers specifically to Jews.

 

Currently, there are 179 countries, and several autonomous territories, without any law or judicial precedent against Holocaust denial. This includes all of North and South America, Africa, Oceania, Asia (except Israel, should any Holocaust denier have an overwhelming desire to go there in the first place) and 37 of the 50 countries in Europe. On July 8 1986, the Israeli Parliament passed a law criminalizing denial of the Holocaust. In 2007 The European Union approved legislation that makes Holocaust denial a crime punishable by imprisonment. Genocide denial, for example, is legal in the former Yugoslav states, Greece and several other countries where the Nazis abducted Jews during the war.

 

The number of countries banning genocide denial has been largely constant since the 1990s. Spain repealed their law against genocide denial in 2007. Parliaments in United Kingdom and Sweden have rejected proposals for such laws. The European Parliament has also rejected a directive to criminalize genocide denial. Canada's Supreme Court sentenced James Keegstra in R. v. Keegstra in 1990 for hate speech not limited to Holocaust denial, but in R. v. Zundel in 1992 they acquitted Zündel, and declared Holocaust denial to be protected by the Canadian Constitution. The only recent law against genocide denial was made in Hungary in 2010. Previously, trivialization of the Holocaust was illegal. The new law prohibits "denial of genocide committed by Communist or Nazi system," with no special mentioning of the Holocaust or Jews.

 

Deniers often claim that these laws are a product of Jewish influence. In which case, perhaps one could explain why Holocaust denial is perfectly legal in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Russia, all of which have significant Jewish populations, however is illegal in Poland, Romania and Lithuania, where few Jews live today.

 

I've always found the perceived anti-Semitic side of Holocaust denial, along with established figures to be deeply troubling. Certainly, anti-Semitism plays a large part in the denial of what is an historically established fact. Ask most people how many people died in the Holocaust, and the answer is simple. Six million Jews. In actuality, almost 12 million people, that we know of, perished in the atrocity, and several recent studies suggest the figure may be as high as 17 million. I have every sympathy for the plight of the Jews during the Second World War. I do wish, however, that when referring to the Shoah, the other 5.5 million who were brutally massacred, were given more prominence.

 

Whilst the extermination of the Jews is widely known, the remaining demographics are less well known, and even less well publicised. And so, for those unfamiliar with the official statistics, this shows the total number of people who perished at the hands of The Third Reich.

 

Jews - 5.93 million

Soviet POWs - 2–3 million

Ethnic Poles - 1.8–2 million

Serbs - 300,000–500,000

Disabled - 270,000

Romani - 90,000–220,000

Freemasons - 80,000–200,000

Slovenes - 20,000–25,000

Homosexuals - 5,000–15,000

Jehovah's Witnesses - 2,500–5,000

Spanish Republicans - 7,000

 

It is plausible that not all Holocaust denial is born out of anti-Semitism. There are people who simply find it inconceivable that almost 12 million people could be systematically exterminated by one regime. This is understandable, as it is an unimaginably high number of people. In fact, it is the equivalent of the entire population of Zimbabwe or Belgium. Should you be more familiar with US population, it equates to wiping out every single resident of the state of Illinois. I have, for many years, been interested in the history of the Holocaust, and even after much study, I find it incredibly hard to comprehend that level of industrialised murder.

 

Next, we must turn to freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is, in effect, a "thought crime". It is simply articulating the belief which, in certain countries which is criminal. Realistically, does arresting, charging or even imprisoning someone have any effect whatsoever on their thought process? Somehow, I very much doubt it, and would postulate that it is entirely counterproductive, further rationalising the belief that Jews somehow exercise some control  over their freedom.

 

Whilst the laws in countries where Holocaust denial are in force are presented as encompassing the denial of all genocides or atrocities, prosecutions for those extending beyond the Holocaust are largely unknown; personally, and despite considerable research, I have been unable to find a single case where, within civilised countries, charges have been laid against anyone for denial of The Crusades, or The Rwandan Genocide.

 

If someone holds a sincere belief, however foolish or misguided, should that be criminalised? And if so, where does one draw the line? We, rightly, frown upon Middle Eastern countries who implement harsh punishments for apostasy or espousing atheistic views. They truly believe they are defending their religion. Blasphemy laws are still enforced in many of these nations, often with the ultimate punishment.

 

It is a sad irony that those who would deny people the right to deny the deaths of almost 12 million people, are, in effect, fighting to give up one of the freedoms that 21 million Servicemen gave their lives to protect. One of the things I admire most about the United States is the First Amendment, granting absolute freedom of speech to everyone. Of course, there are caveats, as I mentioned in my previous blog post. One cannot shout "bomb" in a crowded airport, and expect free speech to protect you. And rightly so. Neither can you incite violence or criminality.

 

Free speech is a beautiful privilege; a right which we should all enjoy. And with that beauty, comes great ugliness. Free speech must extend to hate speech, without incitement, and it must extend to ignorance or blind stupidity, including denial of one of the worst atrocities in the history of the human race. After all, when repressive regimes rise, speech is usually the first privilege that the suppressed will lose. In the case of the United Kingdom, should a party such as the BNP ever rise to power, minority groups, such as Muslims or gay people, would be considerably worse off without the protection of freedom of expression. One only has to look to France, and their legislation against female Muslims wearing the Burqa or Niqab in public places. Likewise, one can look to Russia, which legislates heavily against the ‘promotion of’ (education about) homosexuality.

 

Ultimately, the solution to ignorance, be it wilful stupidity, failure to comprehend the enormity of 12 million people being executed, or motived by pure bigotry, is not legislation. It is education.

 

And, just on the off chance, anyone misunderstands my words, I absolutely, implicitly, do not deny the appalling atrocities that took place during The Second World War. The Holocaust happened. It is an historical FACT. And if you deny it, you are either naive or intensely stupid.

 

In light of what you've read, I'd ask you to vote again, in the poll below. Have you reconsidered? Or do you think I'm wrong, and that denial of the Holocaust absolutely should be criminalised? Please, take the time to consider, carefully, before voting, and comments are most welcome.

 

Having read the post, do you now think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offence

Yes No Undecided  

pollcode.com free polls

 

For the fallen

We honour you. We thank you. We remember you.

Griffin Musings...

Perpetually repugnant, odious turd, Nick Griffin is in the spotlight, again, this time for a highly offensive tweet. For those fortunate enough to have avoided seeing it retweeted into their timeline, I'll present it here.

Like Griffin himself, it's pretty disgusting. There are calls to have him arrested for posting it. I understand, absolutely, the sentiment behind that desire, however, I do not share it. I believe in freedom of speech, and unfortunately, sometimes that entails hearing, or, in this case, reading, things we'd prefer not to. That is one of the downsides to true, uncensored free speech. Unless specifically inciting violence or criminality, speech should ALWAYS remain protected. There will those who agree with Griffin. One could, theoretically, argue that he is inciting people to be racists, however I firmly believe that any sane person reading his drivel is hardly likely to be converted into a bigot, and in the unlikely event that they are, we absolutely ccannot start arresting people for "thought crimes". Racists, bigots and homophobes exist. That is sad fact of society, one which we have to deal with.

We will not deal with it by arresting people. We counter it by educating people, and, where appropriate, by mocking the archaic views of a clown like Griffin. Thankfully, he is in a minority. Look at the number of "likes" and "retweets" he has had. I've seen photos of people's dinner with more interaction!

We have paid a high price for free speech in this country, and cannot allow it to be eroded by bigoted old farts like Nick Griffin. People have fought in wars and paid the ultimate price, to defend our rights. Certainly, had Griffin continued his tirade with an incitement to violence, I would be among the first to call for his arrest. He hasn't. He's posted something vile, morally defective and bordering on insane. It isn't, however something which should be clogging up the judicial system. It sets a very dangerous precedent which has wider implications for all of us. Shout "bomb" in an airport, or incite violent or criminal behaviour, and that, and only that, is where the line between free speech and illegality is crossed.

Let's be absolutely clear. I am not defending Griffin. I am defending free speech. Nothing more. The same free speech which allows me to call Griffin exactly what he is; an obsequious, pusillanimous puddle of stale pig vomit. I don't support his views. But unless he crosses that fine line into incitement to criminality, I do, with some considerable regret, support his right to hold and share an opinion. No matter how ugly or vile it may be.

Some time ago (back in 2009), I wrote a piece for The Socialist newspaper after the BBC invited Griffin to appear on BBC Question Time. There was a huge brouhaha about it, with many attempting to shut him down. In my article, I defended the BBC's decision to invite him to appear. Below,my out can read my original piece. It is followed by a post-appearance analysis. Whilst he isn't likely to be appearing on the BBC again. I believe the points raised are as relevant now as they were then.

Nick Griffin.

From "The Socialist". Presented in it's original, unedited form.

Issue 595 of The Socialist presents an interesting argument condemning the BBC’s decision to allow the repulsive BNP leader Nick Griffin a voice. How many times have we slammed the door in the faces of those we don’t wish to hear? Probably quite a few! However, I believe that sometimes we must open the door and listen in order to truly understand that which we despise.

Pointing to the decision by the BBC to deny Bob Crow a voice on Question Time, does not justify banning Griffin. Of course we are right to feel and this is a perfect opportunity to show the hypocrisy that BBC has displayed. However, rather than calling for the censoring of Griffin, and risking the inevitable claims that we are vindictive and retaliatory, we should be using this opportunity to engage the BBC into proving it is as unbiased and non-partisan as it claims to be!

Slamming the door on the BNP will, in this case, deny the public an opportunity to truly listen to them. Furthermore, it would offer the BNP more publicity as they take to the roof-tops and scream “censorship” giving them a rare opportunity to be morally right! Fighting the censorship of Mr Crow with more censorship is counterproductive in exposing the BNP along with any bias within the BBC. It is also against our inalienable right to Freedom of Speech. We should be arguing for OUR voices to be heard, NOT for the BNP to be silenced.

We must remember that, unfortunately, the BNP were democratically elected, and is a legitimate political party, which some see as a viable alternative to mainstream parties, due to their stance on immigration and the EU. Many others know what the BNP are truly about; seeing beyond the rhetoric into a vile, repulsive cancer on society. They see an inherently racist, homophobic far-right organisation that has no interest in real political change, only in their vile agenda.

As an Atheist, I seldom look to the bible for any anything, but on this it actually offers some sage advice, in just seven words. “By their words, you shall know them”…

In allowing them to appear on QT, they will be under scrutiny from EVERYONE, regardless of political affiliation, and while the questioners may be “cherry-picked”, the public will be watching. Regular viewers will have seen the reaction to the MP expenses scandal and watched as those MP’s were mocked and embarrassed in their pathetic attempts to redeem themselves.

In the same way, LET the public see Griffin, question him and make the judgement as he shows the true face of their “party. While this will inevitably embolden a few already ardent BNP supporters, it will lose them MUCH more than it will ever gain. It will expose them for what they really are. Do we really want to call on the BBC to silence that opportunity?

I believe the vast majority of the British public are intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding the BNP, but they cannot do so without being exposed to them in all their “glory”. One can only comment on the pain of a snake bite, when bitten...

Let Griffin bite; his venom will soon become apparent as it flows through, and is flushed out of, the hearts and minds of ordinary, decent people, who will, as with the snake, come to regard him, and his repugnant party, with considerable caution, aware of the very real danger they pose.

Give Griffin a verbal spade, courtesy of the BBC, and he WILL dig his own deep, dark hole and with any luck, fall down it! We will be there to see him plummet…

---

Post Question Time analysis, again, presented in it's original form.

SO… BNP leader and societal parasite Nick Griffin got his platform on Question Time, and is most definitely NOT happy. He is launching an official complaint with the BBC for facing a “lynch mob” (an activity I’m surprised he isn’t volunteering for!).

If Griffin thought he was going to get an easy ride, he was a tad mistaken, and the fear people had that he would be allowed to use QT as a platform for political promotion has been allayed.

I’m not sure what he hopes to achieve with his complaint. It wasn’t an unfair or biased audience; it wasn’t a lynch mob; it was representative of what the vast majority of sensible British people believe, and those that were on the fence will almost certainly have leapt off in the other direction.

Already looking decidedly uncomfortable on a panel consisting of Baroness Warsi, (Conservative Minister, and influential Muslim), and Bonnie Greer, the Black playwright and Director of the British Museum; two very erudite panellists who seemed more than capable of dealing with the Griff-meister and his rhetoric, at times he was visibly shaking, looking more like an addict in need of a fix than a political force to be reckoned with.

He did manage to garner applause on two occasions. One, which appeared to be from ONE person, who was then given equal short shrift by the rest of audience. Half a dozen people did applaud his criticism of Islam, as he singled out the fundamentalist aspects of the religion, quoting some of the more unpleasant passages from the Qur'an, whilst ignoring the equally vile passages from other religious texts, including the Bible. At no point did he reference the 99% of moderate Muslims, who are every bit as repulsed, by terrorism, fundamentalism and the dangerous aspects of Qu’ranic interpretation, as the rest of society.

To say Griffin had a rough ride is a little like his charming quote that “Perhaps Adolf went ‘a bit too far’ during WWII”. His sudden u-turn on the Holocaust (in, according to him, “light of new evidence”!), and his denial of that terrible period of human history was as transparent as a glass of water. Denying quote after quote, only to be faced with evidence to the contrary, he sweated, shook and was clearly unprepared for the onslaught he faced.

Had it not been for the fact he is a vile, homophobic, racist idiot, with all the charm and personality of Jabba the Hutt, it would have been the stuff of high comedy! There are already rumours of BNP members calling for him to step down. He showed his true colours, as resplendent as a peacocks tail, but without any of the inherent beauty. The cheap veneer fell away piece by piece, with every exercising of his larynx, and it was a joy to watch, safe in the knowledge that practically every word that spewed from his mouth was another vote “down the drain”.

There are going to be hard-line BNP supporters who will agree with Griffin, backing his complaint and waxing lyrical about the “ultra-left” BBC, who gave him such a hard time. I believe, as my parents used to say, the old adage… “Awww, diddums!” will apply, as his complaint holds as much water as a sieve.

Nicky Boy.. you got exactly what you wanted, and exactly what you deserved; crying to Auntie about it because you proved yourself to be a nasty, bigoted fool, with no political knowledge whatsoever only makes you look even more foolish, if indeed that is possible.