Freedom of Speech and Holocaust Revisionism
in Germany and Austria
In recent
times four major figures of the Holocaust revisionist movement have
been arrested on “Holocaust denial” charges. German scientist Germar
Rudolf and German revisionist activist Ernst Zundel were deported from
the United States and will stand trial in Germany. Likewise with Siegfried
Verbeke, as he was extradited from Belgium for trial in Germany. British
historian David Irving was arrested in Vienna, Austria, on charges that
he publicly denied aspects of the “Holocaust” in the late 1980s. His
trial will supposedly take place in 2006.
In response
to these arrests, a series of articles were published in the mainstream
media addressing the issue of freedom of speech in regard to the Holocaust
issue. Among the most important was a piece by noted Jewish writer D.D.
Guttenplan, London correspondent for The Nation and author of The Holocaust
on Trial.1
Guttenplan
apparently condemns the Austrian government’s threat to imprison Irving
for rejecting aspects of the Holocaust ideology: “The threat of a 20-year
prison term, even if it doesn’t come to pass, only burnishes Irving’s
counterfeit credentials as a martyr to free speech.”
He adds,
however, it is the Austrian government’s right to censor him: “Whatever
their motives, the Austrians have every right to deny Irving a platform,
even to deport him. They do not, though, have the right to rescue him
from well-deserved obscurity.” Nevertheless, Guttenplan does offer arguments
as to why “Holocaust denial” laws are justified in countries like Germany
and Austria. As we shall soon see, this is an attempt to “sell” the
censorship of Holocaust revisionism in foreign countries to an American
audience that places a high value upon the right to freedom of speech.
“Countries
that outlaw Holocaust denial,” Guttenplan writes, “do so not because
they love liberty less than we do but because their history is different
from ours. Holocaust denial causes real pain to survivors and their
families. To fail to acknowledge that pain, or to treat it as a particularly
Jewish problem that need not trouble anyone else, is to deny our common
humanity—precisely the denier’s aim.”
For the
moment, let us examine the statements of two major Jewish figures who
can cause pain in non-Jewish Europeans by their use of the Holocaust
ideology. Holocaust ideologist Elie Wiesel declared: “Auschwitz signifies…the
failure of two thousand years of Christian civilization…”2
Here
is a statement that can cause real pain to Christian peoples, as he
is saying that, because of the alleged Holocaust, the whole span of
Christian civilization is a failure! In a past issue of the Forward,
one of the most important Jewish newspapers in the United States, the
president of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffe, made this
statement: “And in Europe, which bears the mark of Cain for its complicity
in the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a means of absolving
guilt.
In turning
Israelis from victims into Nazis, they [non-Jewish Europeans] seek to
cleanse their consciences by casting their sins upon us [the Jews].”3
Once
again, here we have a major Jewish figure claiming that non-Jewish Europeans
carry the mark of a murderer. Obviously, statements like this cause
pain to non-Jewish Europeans. Let me put my argument in the language
of Guttenplan. “Jewish people like Wiesel, Yoffe and others cause real
pain to Europeans and Christians when they use the Holocaust ideology
to degrade and humiliate European and Christian civilization. To fail
to acknowledge that pain, or to treat it as a particularly European
and Christian problem that need not trouble anyone else, is to deny
our common humanity—precisely the aim of Jewish promoters of the Holocaust.
Therefore,
countries should outlaw promotion of the Holocaust ideology because
it causes real pain to many non-Jews. ”Countries like Germany and Austria
would obviously reject such an argument, because their laws and policies
are riddled with a hypocritical double standard. Jews are accorded special
privileges. According to Guttenplan’s logic, Germany and Austria rightly
outlaw Holocaust revisionism because it causes pain to Jewish survivors
and their families.
But Germany
and Austria do not outlaw the Holocaust ideology when Jews like Wiesel
and Joffe use it to cause pain to non-Jews. In the language of Guttenplan:
Germany and Austria fail to acknowledge the pain that the Holocaust
ideology causes non-Jewish Europeans. Again in the language of Guttenplan:
the German and Austrian governments treat the pain caused to non-Jews
by the Holocaust ideology as a “Gentile problem” that need not trouble
anyone else.
Finally,
one last time in the rhetoric of Guttenplan: the governments of Germany
and Austria deny our common humanity because they prosecute non-Jews
for rejecting the Holocaust ideology and causing pain in Jews, but they
fail to prosecute Jews for the pain they cause when they promote the
Holocaust ideology.
Germany
and Austria thereby deny our common humanity because they elevate Jewish
concerns and pain above that of non-Jewish concerns and pain. Guttenplan’s
argument is a contorted and twisted rationalization for the censorship
of Holocaust revisionism. He dresses up the “justification” for the
punishment of those Germans and Austrians who publicly reject the Holocaust
ideology in the garb of “humanitarian moral principles.” As the political
psychologist Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, this is an age-old Jewish
tactic—clothing sectarian Jewish interests in universalistic “moral”
rhetoric in order to make it more appealing to the non-Jewish world.
Here
is Guttenplan’s other argument in favor of censoring Holocaust revisionism:
“[I]n Germany and Austria Holocaust denial is not just hate speech but
also a channel for Nazi resurgence, like the Hitler salute and the swastika,
which are also banned. Countries where the experience of occupation
and the shame of collaboration still rankle have different views than
ours on the balance between dissent and disorder. And Bosnia and Rwanda
should have taught all of us that these are not simple questions. Sticks
and stones may still break bones but name-calling can clear a path to
genocide.” In other words, the proliferation of Holocaust revisionism
will cause the masses of people to reject German/Austrian democracy,
overthrow the current governments, and establish totalitarian, extremist
right-wing regimes.
These
new, National Socialist type governments will then initiate genocidal
policies directed at non-German minorities. One could cogently argue
just the opposite. It is not the public espousal of Holocaust revisionism,
but rather, the censorship and persecution of Holocaust revisionism
that causes many Germans and Austrians to reject the current “democracies”
and favor extremist right-wing regimes.
The more
the current German and Austrian “democracies” assault and humiliate
the Germanic/Austrian national identity with Holocaust propaganda, and
the more they persecute those who reject the Holocaust ideology, so
in turn, the more they actually promote the totalitarian National Socialist
“alternative.” That is, the German and Austrian governments’ policies
are counterproductive, and they promote the very thing that they are
attempting to stamp out—totalitarian National Socialism.
Winfried
Brugger, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Heidelberg,
points out that “Every politician says we have a healthy, robust democracy
in Germany.”5 Yet, it is this same “healthy, robust democracy” that
prevents a defendant charged with “Holocaust denial” from presenting
evidence showing that “Holocaust denial” is in fact true. All Holocaust
revisionist arguments and evidence are simply banned—period!6 This is
the characteristic of a totalitarian and fascist legal system, not that
of a democracy It is this blatant contradiction—on the one hand, the
German and Austrian governments’ claims that they are “democratic,”
and on the other hand, their denial of free speech for Holocaust revisionists—that
generates disdain for “ democracy” and prods people to turn towards
totalitarian National Socialism.
To continue
with this line of reasoning. If the German and Austrian governments
are truly interested in preventing a resurgence of right-wing extremism,
they would tolerate Holocaust revisionism instead of persecuting it.
This would show the German and Austrian peoples that a truly democratic
society tolerates all points of view in regard to the Holocaust. This
would suggest to the people that a true democracy that grants freedom
of speech to all is superior to an extremist right-wing government that
denies freedom of speech to many. And finally, it would allow the German
and Austrian peoples to “clean up” their national identity by showing
the world they are not nations of mass murderers that build “gas chambers”
to exterminate whole populations.
Real
German and Austrian democracies that promote a positive national identity,
and freedom of speech in regard to the Holocaust issue, are more likely
to survive than false German and Austrian “democracies” that degrade
the national identity with the Holocaust ideology and suppress freedom
of speech in regard to the Holocaust issue.
II
Viewpoints and theories that are supported by evidence and reason don’t
need special laws and jail sentences to protect them. For example, there
are people that reject the theory of Darwinian evolution. There are
no special laws and jail sentences for such individuals. Evolutionary
theory stands on its own body of solid evidence. Ironically, it may
be a somewhat favorable sign for the future of Holocaust revisionism
that Germany, Austria and other European nations ban Holocaust revisionism.
Like
Revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson has pointed out, it suggests to
the world that Holocaust revisionism cannot be defeated with evidence
and reason.7
The opponents
of revisionism are intellectually impotent, and they cannot defeat revisionism
with facts, evidence and logic. Unlike revolutionary theory, the “Holocaust”
is a weak and flimsy ideology that needs special laws and jail sentences
to protect it.
Footnotes:
1. D.D.
Guttenplan, “The rights of a ‘paper Eichmann,’” The Los Angeles Times,
19 November 2005. Online: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-guttenplan19nov19,1,894937.story
2. Quoted
in Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving
Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p.6.
3. Quoted
in the Forward, 14, November 2003, p.9.
4. Kevin
MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish
Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
(Praeger, 1998), passim.
5. “The
virus of hate,” Toronto Star, 8 November 2005.
6. Ibid.
7. “Zionist
power stems from West’s belief in ‘Holocaust’ myth:
Faurisson,” Tehran Times Political Desk, 10 November 2005.
Online: http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives.asp
|