Stomping free speech flat in Europe

Regular readers of this blog know that I have a particular dislike for Holocaust denial and that, indeed, I've tried to do my small part to counter the lies spread by Holocaust deniers, beginning on Usenet eight years ago. Regular readers will also know my opinion regarding laws in certain European countries such as Germany and Austria banning Holocaust denial upon pain of prison and other penalties. Although I can understand why such laws may have been necessary in the early postwar period, when the resurgence of Nazi-ism was a real danger, now, nearly 62 years after the end of the war, I fail to see any compelling reason to justify the onerous restrictions on free speech that these laws demand, which is why I was actually happy when Holocaust denier David Irving was released from prison last month.

I'm not so happy to learn of this:

BERLIN: Germany wants to use its European Union presidency to push through legislation that would make denying the Holocaust punishable by stiff jail sentences in all 27 EU member states.

The country's justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, said Thursday night that Germany's commitment to combating racism and xenophobia -- and keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive -- was both an enduring historical obligation and a present-day political necessity.

"We have always said that it can't be the case that it should still be acceptable in Europe to say the Holocaust never existed and that six million Jews were never killed," she said. Under the German proposal, she said, those who deny the Nazi slaughter of Jews during World War II could face up to three years in prison.

No, no, no, a thousand times no! This is an absolutely horrible idea. Zypries is correct in saying that it should not be acceptable to say that the Holocaust never happened, as in socially not acceptable, much the way passing a loud, stinky fart in public is frowned upon in most places. However, she is painfully, woefully, and utterly misguided in concluding that to make Holocaust denial "not acceptable" the EU needs to pass a law to outlaw it throughout all of its member nations. Combatting racism and xenophobia should not necessitate stomping free speech flat, but misguided busy-bodies like Zypries seem to think that it does.

Fortunately, not all EU members are likely to go along with this stupendously wrong-headed plan, but unfortunately Italy is thought to have dropped its previous resistance to a similar plan:

Zypries said the proposal, which will be debated by the bloc's justice ministers in the next six months, would also seek to criminalize racist declarations that are an incitement to violence against a specific person or group. The aim, she said, was to harmonize national legal systems in their approach to combating racism and xenophobia.

Unifying hate crime rules in countries with vastly different legal cultures could prove difficult, analysts said. European leaders have been unanimous in condemning those who deny the Holocaust, and have sharply criticized the Iranian government for sponsoring a recent conference that cast doubt on it.

But the question of whether to criminalize such acts has divided Europe between countries like Germany that view a common EU law as a moral imperative and other countries, like Britain, Italy and Denmark, that have resisted common rules as infringing on free speech and civil liberties.

Two years ago, Luxembourg tried to use its EU presidency to push through legislation to unify legal standards for Holocaust denial, but was blocked by Italy on the grounds that the legislation breached freedom of speech. At the time, several countries rejected attempts to ban Nazi symbols, which gained force after the release of photos of Prince Harry of Britain wearing a swastika armband at a costume party.

Zypries said she was confident Germany could now succeed in overcoming such resistance since Italy, under a left- of-center prime minister, Romano Prodi, had dropped its opposition. But she cautioned that the legislation would need to be sufficiently narrow in scope if it were to gain support.

The Luxembourg proposal, which Germany is studying with a view toward emulating it, states that racist declarations or Holocaust denial will not be prosecuted if they are expressed in a way that does not incite hatred against an individual or group of people.

"Expressed in a way that does not incite hatred against an individual or a group of people"? What on earth does that mean. Holocaust denial is inherently anti-Semitic and designed to express or incite hatred against Jews. How on earth would prosecutors determine what speech of this ort does and does not "incite hatred"? The problem with laws against this sort of speech is that prosecutors inevitably interpret these laws as broadly as they can get away with; in other words, as broadly as the courts will let them. Even if the courts ultimately slap them down for overreaching, a lot of people can get hurt in the meantime. Besides, my confidence in European prosecutors to appreciate the nuances and recognize who is and is not truly "inciting hatred," given that they can't or won't distinguish between the use of banned Nazi symbols to protest neo-Nazi-ism and to glorify it, leading to the prosecution of anti-Nazi protestors who include swastikas and other Nazi symbols in their signs and literature.

I would go even further and argue that, while it is certainly desirable to curb direct incitements to violence, such as threats, it shouldn't be against the law to "incite hatred." I get the distinct feeling that the laws being proposed aren't exactly going to be too exacting in defining what constitutes "incitement. I get the feeling that little distinction is going to be made between incitement to "hatred" and incitement to imminent violence. Such is the distinction that was made by the U.S. Supreme Court under Brandenburg v. Ohio, which stated:

...[our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

It's a reasonable standard that places minimal reasonable restrictions on free speech.

I realize that Europe has a different history and that many European nations place different values than we Americans do on the right to free speech compared to the desire to restrict incitement, but these sorts of lawas are scary stuff to me. One big problem with the proposed law is that it seems to criminalize all Holocaust denial but says that it won't be "prosecuted" if it doesn't result in incitement. Who decides what is and isn't "incitement" in Holocaust denial? I have to wonder: What if someone simply says that the Holocaust never happened? Would that be legal, as long as he didn't say the Holocaust was some sort of Jewish conspiracy? Another problem with the description of the laws that are being proposed is that they seem frighteningly vague on defining what constitutes "incitement to racial hatred." Let's say someone starts ranting about how "Jews control the world" and that whites must "resist Jewish domination," adding, for example, some canards from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or the Blood Libel to spice things up. In the U.S., as disgusting as this sort of speech is, in the U.S. it is protected under the First Amendment, as long as it doesn't include speech that a reasonable person would consider to be likely to incite imminent lawless action or harm to another person. Under the "harmonization" of incitement laws, it sounds as though these vague sorts of expressions would be illegal.

Even if you could make a compelling case for criminalizing such speech, it doesn't end there:

The debate about how to reconcile freedom of speech with the fight against racism gained added momentum recently when the French National Assembly passed a law making it a criminal offense to deny that the massacre of Armenians by Turks during World War I was a case of genocide. While the Armenian community applauded the law, Turkey accused France of restricting the freedom of expression and rewriting history for political ends.

The publication last year of Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad, which provoked fury in the Muslim world, has prompted some Muslims to accuse the EU of double standards in its fight against racism.

Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, last March called on European nations to review laws to ensure they outlaw defamation of all religions. He told a meeting of EU foreign ministers that many Muslims believed European laws protected established Christian religions, and banned anti-Semitism, while doing nothing to defend Muslims who felt offended.

Repeat after me, everyone: There is no "right" not to be offended. Or at least there shouldn't be. That some speech will offend is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Yes, as the above shows, when you make one form of bigotry against the law, it's hard to come up with a legitimate reason not to ban all forms of bigotry when other groups complain. The government tried to do this once before in the U.K. Fortunately they failed. I certainly hope that Turkey doesn't succeed in persuading the EU to pass such a measure to "outlaw defamation of all religions." In any case, why on earth should religion be protected from criticism. It would be manna from heaven for religious extremists, who could use it to shut down criticism of their activities on the grounds of "defamation" of their faith.

Here's a proposed conundrum for the EU. Let's say Germany gets its way and bans Holocaust denial throughout Europe. Then let's say that Turkey gets its way, and "defamation of religion" is similarly outlawed. How would such laws deal with a group like the former World Church of the Creator (now known as the Creativity Movement), a virulently anti-Semitic white supremacist group that represented itself as a religion, one of whose precepts is that the "white race is nature's highest creation." And it denies the Holocaust as well, with all of these vile beliefs said to be part of the religion. Moreover WTCOC is not alone; there are all sorts of racialist, Odinist, Christian Identity, and other groups who claim that Jews are the enemy; that their dislike of Jews or blacks or their white racism is part of their religion. Would laws against "religious defamation" prevent antiracists from criticizing such groups? Or would they have to lock up both the racist group and those who criticize them?

I hope this sort of thing never comes to pass, but it's certainly something that could come up.

But getting back to the original focus of the proposed Holocaust denial law, EU legislators couldn't do Holocaust deniers a bigger favor than passing this proposal if they tried. Unable to convince any reasonable historians or people based on the facts, Holocaust deniers love nothing better than to don the mantle of free speech martyrs. David Irving has done it ever since he was arrested, and the recent Holocaust denier conference in Tehran was filled with disgusting displays of racist Holocaust deniers patting each other on the back and painting themselves as victims of "conscience" who dare to "speak the truth," even though they risk jail. Expect to see even more of that if this sort of measure becomes EU law.

The bottom line is that the best approach to hate speech like Holocaust denial is refutation with more speech, not censorship or criminalizing such speech. Being thrown into jail for his Holocaust denial revived David Irving's fame far better than anything else possibly could have done. Before his imprisonment, he was a humiliated little man not taken seriously by anyone other than far-right wing groups, who turned out in smaller and smaller numbers to hear his speeches and buy his books; since his imprisonment, he has been traveling about, giving interviews to mainstream newspapers, and is more well known that he had been at any time since the Deborah Lipstadt trial. Attempting to criminalize Holocaust denial across the EU will do more to enhance its attractiveness to racist malcontents as "so dangerous that the government has to ban it," than just about anything else that I can think of. Shining the light of day on these slugs is the way to combat them, not throwing them in jail. As Deborah Lipstadt put it, as disgusting as they are, Holocaust deniers should be "free to say what they want" and "equally free to sink in sink in total and glorious oblivion."

Criminalizing Holocaust denial will do nothing but slow that descent into glorious oblivion.

More like this

Remember how often I rail against misguided laws that seek to criminalize Holocaust denial, laws such as the one in Austria under which David Irving was imprisoned? I've referred to them more than once as "stomping free speech flat," and I still believe that's what they do. I've also pointed out…
While I am on vacation, I'm reprinting a number of "Classic Insolence" posts to keep the blog active while I'm gone. (It also has the salutory effect of allowing me to move some of my favorite posts from the old blog over to the new blog, and I'm guessing that quite a few of my readers have…
It occurs to me that I haven't written about this topic in quite a while, but a recent event makes me think that maybe now's the time to revisit this topic. I'm referring to Holocaust denial. Newer readers may not know that part of what got me involved in online discussions back in the late 1990s…
I detest Holocaust denial. Relative newbies who haven't been reading this blog that long may be wondering why I, a physician, booster of science-based medicine, and scourge of the anti-vaccine movement (well, at least in my mind, anyway) would blog about Holocaust denial, but in actuality my…

Repeat after me, everyone: There is no "right" not to be offended. Or at least there shouldn't be. That some speech will offend is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Yes, as the above shows, when you make one form of bigotry against the law, it's hard to come up with a legitimate reason not to ban all forms of bigotry when other groups complain.

Um, you're not grouping in drawing pictures of Mohammed with "bigotry" there, are you?

It's clear what these kinds of speech restrictions lead to.

"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is lobbying for the United Nations to include language against blasphemy in the tenets of a new human rights body and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he supported the idea."

"Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf today called for a ban on the "defamation of Islam" in a speech to the UN General Assembly...."

"...('American Fascists' author Chris) Hedges concludes that the Christian right "should no longer be tolerated," because it "would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible." What does he think should be done? He endorses the view that "any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law," and therefore we should treat "incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal." ...
Hedges advocates passage of federal hate-crimes legislation prohibiting intolerance, but he doesn't really explain how it would work."

I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but I'm really not. The extended, multiple-step logical process that begins with "I think this is bad" and ends with "we must make this illegal" has long been short-circuited in Europe and now the former leads straight to the latter.

Yes, this may very well happen. In my experience, people in Spain do not understand that speech they don't feel comfortable with should not be made illegal. In addition to this, they also feel that Islam is being misrepresented and not tolerated, so they are willing to surrender to Islam and criminalize any and all criticism of it.

Things are going to get very bad.

By valhar2000 (not verified) on 15 Jan 2007 #permalink

While I generally agree with Orac on the matter of free speech, I have to take one issue with this line of reasoning:

Although I can understand why such laws may have been necessary in the early postwar period, when the resurgence of Nazi-ism was a real danger, now, nearly 62 years after the end of the war, I fail to see any compelling reason to justify the onerous restrictions on free speech that these laws demand [...]

I would argue that the resurgence of Nazism (or something equally vile but perhaps slightly different, as history never repeats exactly) is in fact more likely after the passage of time. In the immediate aftermath of the war, when the horrors of Nazism were freshly exposed to the world, only the most feverent supporters wouldn't try to distance themselves from it. However, now that the generation that actually faced those horrors is shuffling off this mortal coil, it's far easier for various loons to rehabilitate Nazism - and it's much easier to make holocaust denial stick.

Neo-nazism is not showing any signs of going away. In fact, the hard right is enjoying something of a renaissance throughout much of Europe at the minute. It currently seems to present a far more real threat than it did in the immediate aftermath of the war.

Neo-nazism is not showing any signs of going away. In fact, the hard right is enjoying something of a renaissance throughout much of Europe at the minute. It currently seems to present a far more real threat than it did in the immediate aftermath of the war.

You neglect to take into consideration the fact that, in the postwar period democracy in West Germany was very weak and there were large remnants of the Nazi Party machinery still in existence, not to mention the fact that large numbers of the Germany population still believed and were resentful of the occupation. It was not unreasonable to suppress Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial as a temporary measure. The problem was, it's become permanent. Now, 62 years later, German democracy is established and much stronger. In addition, the far right loons trying to revive Nazi-ism are considered by the vast majority of the German population to be nothing better than the loons they are.

Even if you were correct, though, I would still argue that German democracy is now strong enough to deal with the threat without suppressing free speech in such a blunt manner.

Don't misunderstand me Orac - I'm of the opinion that any democracy worth the name has to deal with such matters in an open manner. I'm certainly not arguing for these holocaust-denial laws - I'm just not entirely convinced by that particular argument against them.

I see your point about the remants of Nazism in the immediate post-war period, but I stand by my opinion that the passage of time makes it easier to present such far-right views as reasonable.

Unfortunately, it's not only German loons we have to worry about. Similar points of view are being expressed by a disturbingly large variety of people and parties throught Europe. One could perhaps argue that the German experience with Nazism has provided a sort of "innoculation" against such extremism, as they certainly seem to be fairing less well in Germany than in other parts of Europe.

As for them being recognised as the loons they are - I'm sure that's by and large true. It's certainly the case with the British version, the BNP - the vast majority of people regard them as loons. But they're still making alarming electoral gains in certain areas.

My prefered argument against these sort of legal restrictions is that they play directly into the mythology of the hard right - they thrive on the idea that they are persecuted. Don't give 'em the justification, I say.

Dunc said: "Neo-nazism is not showing any signs of going away. In fact, the hard right is enjoying something of a renaissance throughout much of Europe at the minute."

Neo-nazism and its affilated haters (skin heads, Aryan Nation, etc.) are gaining a resurgenge right here in the US. I get HateWatch, the weekly SPLC newsletter, and it is clear to me that these critters are riding the anti-immigration biases which are growing in the US. Anti-immigration rallies are ripe recruiting grounds for them.

Last night on CNN, during a piece where they were discussing the Border Patrol Agents who are in trouble, one emailer, who self-acknowledged their right wing conservatism, said that they voted against Bush and the Republican party specifically because of Bush' promoting amnesty.

This issue is extraordinarily divisive and will bring the cockroach out of the walls.

Very likely Americans will be faced with the same kind of thought crime legislation like in Canada and throughout the European Union in the near future.
Powerful watchdog organisation like the controversial Antidefamation League of Bnai Brith (involved in a domestic espionage scandal in the late 1990ies) and the Southern Poverty Law Center - not to mention the controlled media - are pushing for this kind of laws since a decade or so. They provide manpower and expertise for European legislators and authorities. And believe me, the crimes will most definitely NOT be restricted to "holocaust denial" or "nazi glorification" (cf. Canadian scholar J. Philippe RUSHTON, who was investigated for incitement of racial hatred and nearly lost his job as university professor for psychology for a study he conducted regarding race and IQ).

Note also the inherent bias in the legislation proposal: It is still legal throughout Europe to glorify or apologize STALIN or POL POT. (Similarly, while gangsta rap with its vile anti-white hate lyrics is considered nice mainstream entertainment, in early 2005 skinhead music band LANDSER was ruled a "criminal organisation" by a German court and its lead singer imprisoned - just for some songs!) It is also worth pointing out that these proposed laws conviently help stifle parliamentary and democratic discussion, as several European politicians (most noteably Jean Marie LE PEN, who heads the French Front National, and deputy FN chairman and member of the European Parliament, Bruno GOLLISCH, several members of the Austrian Freedom Party) had legal troubles regarding their views on the holocaust. All of this is happening the European Union, where governments regularly forbid political parties (Vlaams Blok in Belgium), try to do so (the NPD in Germany) or harrass politically incorrect politicians (Britain's Nick GRIFFIN) with "hate crime charges". So political opposition can be legally oppressed both nationally and throughout the EU.
That's European democracy for you.

TheProbe: "affilated haters (skin heads...)"

I hate to nitpick, but in this case I must. Not all skinheads are Nazis. Skinhead is a fashion, nothing else. There are some nazi skins just like there are nazi punks, jocks and christians. Saying all skinheads are nazis is like saying all punks are anarchists or all hip-hop fans are gangsters.

This is a completely American cultural attitude. There are plenty of other first-world, legitimate democracies out there, and I can't think of a single one who's members insist on absolute free speech like in the US. The US, compared to other countries like Canada or those in the EU, are totally different creatures, and what works for one does not work for the other and vice-versa. You are all seeing this issue through the warp of your own American cultural beliefs. There is no crisis here with this.

By anon4this (not verified) on 16 Jan 2007 #permalink


Ive been following this on several blogs and have heard many Europeans voicing complaints about this as well. Now, Im not saying we Americans arent seeing this through our own world-view (just as you are)just that not all Europeans are as comfortable with this as you seem to think.

"politically incorrect politicians": The BNP is not just "politically incorrect." It is a neofascist, racist party.

As for the glorification of Communist tyrants: EuroNat, the organization of European ultra-right wing parties, includes the Serbian Radical Party, which was allied with the nationalist Marxist Milosevic. Similar red-brown alliances appear throughout the European ultra-right, particularly in Russia.

These parties are opportunistically taking advantage of legitimate opposition to militant Islam. Opposition to militant Islam should NOT mean vilification of all Muslims. (See future UN ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, for example.)

Anti-white gangsta rap lyrics and bonehead (racist skinhead) anti-black lyrics are both deplorable. Potentially criminal? Most of it, probably not.

Scholarly organizations and academic institutions ought to have the right to sanction, including removing, individuals for academic misconduct such as Holocaust denial and promoting pseudoscience.

Intimidation, incitement to violence, and sedition have long been against the law, and legal sanctions for these are not "political correct" suppression of free speech.

"You are all seeing this issue through the warp of your own American cultural beliefs. There is no crisis here with this."

The infringement of free speech is always and everywhere a crisis. Yes, I am viewing this issue as an American, which is why I support the absolute right to free speech. That is the correct position.