Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deborah Lipstadt: Should There Be Laws Against Holocaust Denial?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deborah Lipstadt: Should There Be Laws Against Holocaust Denial?

    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.
Working...
X