What does the enlightened, freedom-loving, tolerant and inclusive West have in common with fundamental Islam? Both are overwhelmingly repressive in what they consider to be "acceptable" speech. The latest evidence of this is the conviction and sentencing of David Irving, whose denial of the Holocaust earned him three years in an austrian jail.
This is an interesting case in that Irving, a British "historian", denied the Holocaust during a visit to austria back in 1989 and as a result was charged by austrian criminal authorities. austria, as well as many other Western countries, has criminalized Holocaust denial, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison for anyone convicted of that "crime".
The judge hearing this case threw the book at Irving, despite Irving's profession that he had changed his views since 1989 when the "crime" was alleged to be committed. Irving pleaded guilty to having made the statements and informed the court that since then he has changed his mind and now believes the Holocaust actually occurred. In sentencing Irving, Judge Peter Liebetreu stated, "the court did not consider the defendant to have genuinely changed his mind…The regret he showed was considered to be mere lip service to the law." I find this statement every bit as bizarre as the statement made by the Islamic cleric who said that an apology for the Danish cartoons of the Prophet was not enough, than only war would satisfy him.
What makes us, meaning the West, any different from a country like Saudi arabia that imprisons, tortures and even kills its dissenters, if we imprison those who have a different view? While David Irving is clearly misguided and might even be a raving anti-Semite, in my opinion that isn't enough to send him to prison. The best punishment for someone like Irving is ridicule, as it puts his views in the proper light. Sending him to prison, lends a certain power to those views that ultimately will achieve the opposite of what was intended in the first place.
We have long deluded ourselves that we have rights and freedoms that allow us to think and say whatever we believe. Irving's trial, conviction and imprisonment belie those rights and render them meaningless. What good is the right of free speech if when it is exercised it results in imprisonment?
If you think that David Irving's travails are restricted to countries like austria and Germany, think again. These silly and horribly repressive laws have found their way into North america and are collectively known as "hate laws." The implication of so-called hate laws is that certain groups within our society need protection from those who dislike, disapprove or hate them.
Two names readily come to mind. The first is Ernst Zundel, who was recently deported from Canada to his native Germany, where he is being tried for Holocaust denial, and Jim Keegstra, the former high school teacher and Mayor of Eckville, alberta. Zundel had lived in Canada for 43 years and was the object of orchestrated persecution for his anti-Semitic views, being denied Canadian citizenship on the basis of his being a Holocaust denier.
Keegstra, who taught high school for over 14 years and was finally fired from that job as a result of his espousing some truly "wacko" ideas, including the presence of a centuries-old, world wide Jewish conspiracy to his students. after having lost both his job as a teacher and his position as Mayor of Eckville, Keegstra was prosecuted in 1984 under Section 281.2 under the Criminal Code for "willfully promoting hatred".
Convicted, Keegstra took his case before the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld his conviction and Keegstra was imprisoned.
as a civil libertarian, I am concerned that repressive legislation governs the right to free speech. It seems that most people agree with the legislation and with the prosecution of people like David Irving and Jim Keegstra, as their views are clearly objectionable. Trouble is that while these laws serve to restrict the use of speech that most of us deplore, they also serve as a double-edged sword. When we restrict the civil liberties of those with whom we do not agree we accomplish two things. We give credence to the ideas espoused by them by turning them into martyrs and we place potential restrictions on our own right to free speech, as the opinions we hold today, may someday fall into disfavor with the powers that be.
In that regard there is very little difference between us and the medieval minded Islamic clerics that call for the death of those Danish cartoonists.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement