Thought crimes of the depraved — criminalizing Holocaust denial
Apr 17, 2007 Euroids, Oppression, Past is prologue
The European Union is not so concerned about future holocausts (God forbid) but feeling very self-righteous about the one perpetrated by its grandparents, is seeking to make Holocaust denial a crime. (It already is in Germany and a few other countries.)
This is a bad idea. It makes Holocaust deniers — who are scum, absolute vermin, and the moral equivalent of Nazis — heroes among their own sleazy kind. It focuses undue pressure and interest on expressions of hate that should mostly be ignored or ridiculed. It is a restriction of free speech in what are supposed to be free speech regimes. And it puts authorities in the awkward position of being the “Jews’ policemen,” which is bound mainly to cause resentment.
And it is hypocritical, not only because Europe has reverted to its Jew-hating ways, but because the very same Holocaust denial that will be a crime in Europe is the official policy of those Arab and Muslim countries that provide the manual labor for today’s barren, decrepit Europe of today, the oil it runs on and the foreign policy orientation that makes Europe a cash cow for causes such as the Palestinian Authority and a sure voice for condemnation of Israel every day with a Y in it. How can Europe take such a high and mighty stand on Holocaust denial within its own borders (and even then quite selectively and often grudgingly) but ignore its currency among its valued friends of the Levant and beyond?
Oh, and on hypocrisy — there’s also this beaut:
In an attempt to assuage Turkish fears, several EU diplomats said the provisions would not penalise the denial of mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman troops in the aftermath of the 1915 collapse of the Ottoman empire. Turkey strongly rejects claims that this episode amounted to genocide.
I don’t really know if the Armenian killings were genocide or not. But neither does Europe. They may have been; but “Europe” has decided on political grounds that denying what may have been genocide in Armenia is not the kind of denial that should be criminalized on solely political grounds. Truth is not, however, a matter for parliaments to decide — much less the one in Brussels. What a disaster for a policy — as any content-based restriction on free speech (I except pornography, as the U.S. Constitution theoretically does) must be.
Europe: When it comes to regretting the killing of Jews, or any innocents, this isn’t what we need from you.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
That is a long sentence, packed full of meat, and I agree with every word of it.
On a tangentially related topic, what are your thoughts on collective guilt? I always thought it was an evasion.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Why thank you. Meatiness is a bit of a tendency I have to watch. Good organization of your thoughts into bit-size forkfulls is better.
I do not believe in inherited guilt. I raised that briefly here and no one bit. but “collective guilt”? I believe you can usefully generalize about the people of a nation and that, yes, there can be national or collective responsibility for national or collective actions taken in the national or collective name. Otherwise how can war be waged?; and yet sometimes it must be.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
My question was a little vague, I meant the concept of collective guilt as applied in post-war Germany. It seemed to me to be an evasion because it was often invoked as if that ended the inquiry, “Yeah, we’re all guilty. So you can move along, nothing to see here.” I suppose a clearer (maybe) formulation would be that I agree with the concept of collective guilt– for the reasons you give– but that doesn’t absolve or trump individual guilt.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
In other words, you question the existence of collective absolution!
April 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Exactly. Though I’ll have to go back and read John Duns Scotus to see where he breaks out on this point. I like to follow his lead, because I enjoy wearing his signature line of headgear so much.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I don’t really know if the Armenian killings were genocide or not.
It was genocide, the first of the 20th century. Sadly, it occured in the age before modern telecommunications. So, when the tree fell in a forest where no one was listening, there were plenty of people who were ready to claim that it made no noise.
Hitler understood the opportunities this presented to him when he famously asked (in Mein Kampf): “After all, who remembers the Armenians?” And this was barely a decade after it happened.
On a related note:
I think I’ve said here before that you/we don’t need to travel to Europe to experience the mealy-mouthed kowtowing of bureaucrats.
Remember when Robert Gates and Condi Rice warned Nancy Pelosi AGAINST a Congressional vote to classify the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government early in the 20th century as genocide?
No? Neither do most people. But everyone should be aware of the Gates/Rice letter and the rationale for dropping the matter:
“Turkey remains an indispensable partner to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping our troops accomplish their mission to combat terrorism and build security in both of these young democracies…”
Really, Ron, is this any better than the EU? No it’s not.
More:
“When the French National Assembly in October 2006 voted in favor of a bill that would criminalize denial of the events of 1915, the Turkish military cut all contacts with the French military and terminated defense contracts under negotiation.”
Now I’d be the first to call bullsh-t on the French government for criminalizing free speech, just as I am for calling the Turkish government on their criminalization of those who “insult Turkishness.” But the Gates/Rice response to Pelosi is particularly craven and cowardly.
“A similar reaction by the elected government of Turkey to a House resolution could harm American troops in the field, constrain our ability to supply our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan…”
Pelosi’s resolution is exactly the kind of thing our troops are fighting for — freedom of speech.
And if Gates/Rice were to get their way, the terrorists would have won a small but important battle, no?
“After all, who remembers the Armenians?”
April 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Ara, you’re naive if you don’t believe that governments have to do this all day long in order to maintain strategically valuable relationships. And I know you’re not that.
Yes, politics makes not only strange bedfellows but some unsavory ones, too.
Yes, what the EU is proposing is a level of cynicism yet higher — even if in there, somewhere, is a nub of idealism, which there may well be.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
you’re naive if you don’t believe that governments have to do this all day long in order to maintain strategically valuable relationships. And I know you’re not that.
Thanks.
My point is that too many people are looking to the EU as the harbinger of bad times to come whereas we ought to pay closer attention to the degradation of our own system of governance here — and at the hands or our own leaders, no less.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
The EU is a not a harbinger of bad times to come. It’s bad times, here and now!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
A glimpse, as it were, into our own future?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
The author of this post, Ron Coleman says, “It makes Holocaust deniers — who are scum, absolute vermin, and the moral equivalent of Nazis…”
This is SO typical of those who scream about THEIR freedom of speech. While he/you professes to be all for freedom of speech, when it comes to those he doesn’t agree with, he’ll resort to namecalling, and I’d be willing to bet that he doesn’t stop there.
I don’t know if the Holocaust happened or not, and neither do you, but namecalling and cheap insults will only show the ignorance, lack of decency, and lack of intelligence on the part of those who practice these pathetic tactics.