Monday, February 20, 2006

 

Freedom of Shhhhhhhhh!

The other day I wrote a little commentary on the Danish cartoon controversy. Many of the papers who reprinted the cartoons did so "in the name of free speech." I thought that this was a load of crap, and that they were simply trying to be controversial. Instead of reporting the news, they were creating it.

Well, the whole argument has been thrown into sharp relief today. In Austria, British national David Irving has pled guilty to charges of denying that the Holocaust happened. That's right; this guy is facing ten years in prison for having an opinion. He made these comments 17 years ago, comments that he has since retracted. (Although there is plenty of evidence that suggests he has retracted nothing.)

Personally, I think David Irving is a scumbag. I think anyone who thinks that the Holocaust never happened is appalling and I wouldn't take the time to spit on them. That said, I think that no one should be punished for their beliefs, no matter how much I find it sickening.

You can't have Freedom of Speech and then criminalize opinions that most people find distasteful. Opinions that most people believe in don't need the protection of Freedom of Speech. It's the unpopular ones that need protecting. And while people like me hate comments like Mr. Irving's, and would spend our lives trying to defeat positions like his, I would defend his right to say it. It is my right to speak out against Mr. Irving, and as long as I enjoy that right, so too can he enjoy the right to be a monumental douchebag by saying such things.

I have no idea what it must be like to live in a country that took part in the Holocaust. I have no idea what it must be like for a nation to come to terms with something like that. Sure, the U.S. has had its own genocidal history. But here, it's history. In Europe, the Holocaust was something that happened in my grandfather's day. No idea what it must be like to think that the wholesale slaughter of an entire people happened on Granddad's watch. I cannot fathom trying to wrap your head around that.

I do understand the desire to punish people like Irving. But don't come to me with tales of freedom of speech when you are criminalizing that which you find distasteful. I have no patience for hypocrisy.

Comments:
The freedom of speech and its restrictions are free for any country in EU to define. We simply do not have a common constitution and we certaintly do not have a common set of values to believe in as you might have in USA. I could point out a million inconsistancies that looks hyportitic if you view the EU as a single organ. Take a look at our support for the war in Iraq for example. That ranged from we-are-with-you to we-are-against-you.

Anyway. As much as I dont like Irving, he could have moved to Denmark and he wouldn´t go to jail a single day because it isn´t illegal here in Denmark to deny Holocaust. I cant imagine why it should be illegal in Austria.
Unfortuntely that point is pretty much lost on people from outside EU.
 
What's an EU? Just kidding...

I have to agree with our anonymous poster though, the rest of the world doesn't share the same liberties we have in the good ol' USA.

I can't believe it was only twenty years ago he made that statement. Did he think they were making "plaster of paris" skulls at Auschwitz? Were the Nazis big arts and crafts guys?

As much as we bitch about the current administration we should never take for granted what a great country this really is.
 
Just an update: They sentenced him to three years in jail.

I understand that the EU does not have a single Constitution. I am fully cognizant of the fact that Europe is many nations with many sets of values. (We have many sets of values here too.) However, Austria was one of the nations to reprint the Mohammed cartoons. That is why it is hypocritical.

While I see Europe as a vast collection of many cultures, languages and beliefs, the people burning down Danish embassies don't. They see the West as the West. What does this imprisonment says to them is that the freedoms that we claim to cherish only apply when it's convenient.

Do we really want a slime ball like Irving to be the one who sacrifice his freedom for his beliefs? Do we really want him to be the one to sacrifice himself on the altar of Freedom of Speech?
 
Any martyr in a storm.

No of ocurse we don't want an asshole representing the West, but that's who the bullseye has landed on.
 
Irving might have made the claim 20 years ago, but I am almost sure he has defended his position more recently. If im not mistaken, he argued against the Holocaust with an english journalist at a public speaking square in England a few years ago. At least I seem to remember seeing that in TV.

Yes, the EU is probably viewed as one unified body by the flag burning hordes. We have also made the mistake of viewing the Muslem opposition as one single voice, which is also a wrong generalization.

And yes, from the looks of it Austria seems to have a hypocritic stance at freedom of speech if you cannot question Holocaust. However, I dont know which specific law he has broken, what he has said and why that law is in place in Austria. And I would be hesitant saying that any persons, laws or nations are hypocritic based on that story and the Mohammed cartoons.

/Jens-Christian - Denmark
 
Jens-
You are correct, all the evidence points to the fact that Irving hasn't retracted a thing.

The law he was convicted of breaking was a law that prohibits any public denial of the Holocaust. Aparantly in 1989 he made some speeches in Austria that claimed that Hitler never killed any Jews and that there were no gas chambers at the concentration camps, etc. In other words, bullshit.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home