Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Against the proposed Europe-wide legal ban on genocide denial

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

  • Against the proposed Europe-wide legal ban on genocide denial

    Against the proposed Europe-wide legal ban on genocide denial

    Posted: January 28, 2015 in anti-semitism and racism, genocide,
    Israel / Palestine

    Tags: anti-semitism, European Council on Toleration and
    Reconciliation, genocide denial,Holocaust denial, Israeli ban on
    Nakba, Nakba


    I published this letter in the Guardian on 27 January 2015 (scroll
    down for my letter):
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/hopes-and-fears-in-shadow-of-holocaust

    'The proposals of a European Council on Toleration and Reconciliation
    report for a Europe-wide ban on genocide denial, as part of a swathe
    of new legal measures (Jewish groups want EU ban on intolerance, 26
    January), are highly problematic. First, it is proposed to ban denial
    of the Holocaust, but not of other historic cases such as the Armenian
    genocide or the Palestinian Nakba - although Nakba denial (legally
    enforced in Israel) is as likely to contribute to antisemitism (a
    major concern of the report) as is Holocaust denial.

    Second, it is proposed to outlaw denial only of any "other act of
    genocide the existence of which has been determined by an
    international criminal court or tribunal". This sounds reasonable, but
    international courts try individuals, only adjudicating history
    incidentally; most recent genocide, like historic genocide, has not
    been tried internationally; and these courts' operations are highly
    politically constrained.

    The proposed bans will only lead to arbitrary and contested
    prosecutions which increase polarisation, not reconciliation. It is
    better to combat genocide denial through argument and evidence.
    Martin Shaw
    Author, What is Genocide?'

    To expand, there are at least five separate issues here:

    1. Banning ideas, however reactionary, as such - rather than when they
    threaten violence or discrimination - breaches freedom of speech.

    2. The report doesn't say what is to be banned - 'literal' denial (of
    the facts) or 'interpretative' denial (whether the events constitute a
    genocide). My reference to the Nakba illustrates the contentiousness
    of the latter issue, and the line where legitimate debate and denial
    gets blurred. I do not think it is possible to legally define this
    line: it is a matter for historians.

    3. Naming the Holocaust as a genocide that can't be denied, while
    requiring all other genocides to pass a legal test before their denial
    counts for the purposes of banning, is inconsistent and protects the
    memory of the Holocaust while not protecting that of many other
    historic and contemporary episodes.

    3 In any case, there is no international legal framework for
    recognising genocides and the corpus of international legal decisions
    is decidedly not robust enough to provide an impartial framework. Many
    cases cannot be brought before international courts for political
    reasons, and courts are subject to political pressures in operations,
    leading them to inconsistent decisions which even involve genocide
    denial as in the case of the International Court of Justice decision
    on Bosnia.

    4 In the contemporary European context, to legally ban Holocaust
    denial while not protecting the memory of other genocides such as the
    Nakba, which matter particularly to Muslim and Arab minorities, can
    easily be construed as a partisan intervention, and enforcement could
    easily contribute to polarisation. The incarceration of
    Holocaust-denying 'historian' David Irving in Austria did little good,
    and the indictment of Muslim Holocaust-deniers in France, say, could
    actively cause harm.

    5 The report is considerably motivated by the desire to stem (indeed
    ban) anti-semitism. However we know that contemporary European
    anti-semitism, while rooted in jihadist ideology as well as historic
    legacies, is hugely stimulated by Israel's treatment of the
    Palestinians, as the big spike following last summer's Israeli
    atrocities in Gaza showed. Israel has instrumentalised the Holocaust
    while simultaneously banning commemoration of the Nakba. Netanyahu is
    now shamelessly instrumentalising the recent genocidal mini-massacre
    of Jews in Paris. I argue that to weaken anti-semitism, rather than
    reinforcing these Israeli narratives by banning Holocaust denial, it
    is necessary to seek a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians
    and to challenge Israeli ideology. Recognition of the Nakba could be a
    powerful step in that direction. The European Council on Toleration
    and Reconciliation would have done better to focus on.this alternative
    agenda.

    http://martinshaw.org/2015/01/28/against-the-proposed-europe-wide-legal-ban-on-genocide-denial/

Working...
X