British Historian and Holocaust denier David Irving has been sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court. Denial of the holocaust is a punishable by up to 10 years in prison in Austria but it seems as if papers in Europe are split over the sentence.
Meanwhile, the British House of Commons voted by a margin of one vote to adopt changes to an anti religious hate bill, effectively narrowing the scope of punishable actions and language.
I have long held that laws such as the Austrian one, as well as bans on Nazi imagery or language in Germany and France are egregious violations of freedom of speech. The ostensible purpose of legislation like this is either to make an official government statement or stand about certain events or to prevent their reoccurrence. The laws fail at both. If a government wants to take an official stand, or issue a formal apology, its executive is empowered to do so on behalf of the government, without the need to restrict the liberties of its citizens. The fear that allowing public discussion of or debate about the Nazi's actions during WWII will somehow encourage a renaissance of fascist ideology in Europe is farfetched at best. Placing restrictions on what may be said or about a certain topic (or in the case of Austria believed! - Thought Police anyone?) is precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with horrors of the past. It would be similar to the United States passing laws which made denying the existence of slavery a criminal offense. Let people espouse whatever views they like (provided they are not conspiring in a material way to deprive others of their liberties), and then let them enjoy the opprobrium and ridicule they deserve if their views are absurd. Surely people like Irving deserve to be treated like the inconsequential nuts they are, not to have their profiles elevated to public awareness by treating them like notorious criminals.
The news from Britain is as heartening as the Austrian news is disappointing. I cannot stress this enough. You cannot legislate opinion. If opinion leads people to commit real crimes, then they should be punished for those crimes, but trying to stifle the expression of odious opinions, merely because they give offense is antithetical to the very idea of liberty.
3 Comments:
This is the fundamental problem that I've been hammering at over and over and over again. A strong belief in individual liberty and the 'smooth' functioning of international society (that is, free of strife) may not be compatible.
Liberty is by its very nature offensive, because it rejects the idea that any one person (or group) can actually have all the answers and be above reproach or insult.
The point is, it's no picnic. Feelings are going to get hurt and knees are going to get skinned. If we can't admit that to ourselves, and we honestly think freedom is just happy bunnies and agreement, we really need to get over it.
If certain countries or cultures or religions honestly don't want to have certain subjects discussed, fine! Benevolent dictatorship is very peaceful and no one ever has to get their feathers ruffled. Just don't expect to get the benefits of freedom, either.
Update for those who haven't heard yet - London's Mayor has been suspended for the the month of march for making an innapropriate comment to a Jewish reporter. Here's the story
You beat me by five minutes! I just read that too.
Post a Comment
<< Home