Tweet
DEBORAH LIPSTADT: SHOULD THERE BE LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
History News Network
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59392.html
J an 8 2009
WA
The French intellectual, Bernard-Henri Levi, has a intriguing piece
in The New Republic calling for institutions of laws against genocide
denial. He refers in the main to Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.
His article is prompted, in part, by the recent online petition of
200 Turkish writers, academics, and intellectuals apologizing for
the massacre. According to Internet sources over 800 Turks have since
added their name to the petition.
I do not agree with Levi's stance as I have frequently stated. However,
his article raises some interesting issues.
At one point he makes reference to Irving v. Penguin UK and Lipstadt.
Take France's Gayssot law, which criminalized the denial of crimes
against humanity, and which as yet has been applied only to denial
of the Jewish Holocaust. This is a law that reins in the fringe and
extremist politicians who engage in lightly cloaked anti-Semitism and
who may be tempted to advocate Holocaust denial. This is a law that
prevents masquerades like that of historian David Irving's trial in
London in 2000.
Irving brought a libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, author of
"Denying the Holocaust," who had labeled him a spokesman for Holocaust
deniers. Though the judge ruled in notably strong language that Irving
was indeed a Holocaust denier, in the absence of laws penalizing this
offense, Irving walked free.
In fact, had there been a UK law against Holocaust denial Irving
could never have brought his case. Before the trial I might have
thought this was a good thing.
But as a result of the case, not only was Irving declared by the court
to be a denier, racist, and antisemite but as a result of excellent
research by our historical team we exposed the lies, distortions,
falsifications, and inventions upon which Irving relied in each and
every one of his comments about the Holocaust.
It was costly, time consuming, and, at times, overwhelming. But there
is now a official court record attesting to the fact that denial is
naught but a pack of lies. But more important that the court record
is the work down by the historians. But for the trial it is highly
doubtful that anyone would have devoted their time to showing how he
lied and invented regarding the Holocaust.
History News Network
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59392.html
J an 8 2009
WA
The French intellectual, Bernard-Henri Levi, has a intriguing piece
in The New Republic calling for institutions of laws against genocide
denial. He refers in the main to Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.
His article is prompted, in part, by the recent online petition of
200 Turkish writers, academics, and intellectuals apologizing for
the massacre. According to Internet sources over 800 Turks have since
added their name to the petition.
I do not agree with Levi's stance as I have frequently stated. However,
his article raises some interesting issues.
At one point he makes reference to Irving v. Penguin UK and Lipstadt.
Take France's Gayssot law, which criminalized the denial of crimes
against humanity, and which as yet has been applied only to denial
of the Jewish Holocaust. This is a law that reins in the fringe and
extremist politicians who engage in lightly cloaked anti-Semitism and
who may be tempted to advocate Holocaust denial. This is a law that
prevents masquerades like that of historian David Irving's trial in
London in 2000.
Irving brought a libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, author of
"Denying the Holocaust," who had labeled him a spokesman for Holocaust
deniers. Though the judge ruled in notably strong language that Irving
was indeed a Holocaust denier, in the absence of laws penalizing this
offense, Irving walked free.
In fact, had there been a UK law against Holocaust denial Irving
could never have brought his case. Before the trial I might have
thought this was a good thing.
But as a result of the case, not only was Irving declared by the court
to be a denier, racist, and antisemite but as a result of excellent
research by our historical team we exposed the lies, distortions,
falsifications, and inventions upon which Irving relied in each and
every one of his comments about the Holocaust.
It was costly, time consuming, and, at times, overwhelming. But there
is now a official court record attesting to the fact that denial is
naught but a pack of lies. But more important that the court record
is the work down by the historians. But for the trial it is highly
doubtful that anyone would have devoted their time to showing how he
lied and invented regarding the Holocaust.