Debate:Holocaust denial, criminalization of

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should denial of the Holocaust be illegal?

[]

Background and Context of Debate:

The arguments presented below start from two premises. First, the Nazi government of Germany (1933-45) pursued a deliberate policy of extermination of certain groups, including Jews, people of Jewish ancestry, the Roma (eastern European travelling people), Communists, homosexual people and the mentally handicapped. Second, between 5 million and 6 million people were killed as a result of this policy. Any reader who does not accept the premises stated above is advised to consult Richard Evans’s “Telling Lies about Hitler” (see book suggestions) for a presentation of the evidence that the Holocaust did happen. “Holocaust denial” may be defined as the rejection of either or both of the premises stated at the outset. Denial of the Holocaust is illegal in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland. Those convicted can often be sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. The maximum sentence in Austria is ten years. One of the most prominent modern Holocaust deniers is David Irving, a British writer. In 2000, Irving brought a libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, an American author, in the British civil courts. The judge held that Lipstadt had been justified in describing Irving as a Holocaust denier. In February 2006, Irving was jailed for three years in Austria after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial. The charge related to speeches he had given in Austria in 1989. During the 2006 trial, Irving claimed to have revised his views since 1989, accepting that many Jews had been killed. In an interview a week after his imprisonment, however, he maintained that the number of Jews killed had been grossly exaggerated. Another prominent Holocaust denier is Ernst Zundel, who was deported from Canada to his native Germany in 2005. His trial was in progress at the time of writing (June 2006). This debate works best if both sides accept the premise that the Holocaust happened. An opposition that denied the Holocaust would be unlikely to be persuasive. The Debatabase case on “Debate, Limits Of” examines whether such topics should be regarded as unsuitable for public debate. The debate is therefore essentially about whether Holocaust deniers should be punished as criminals (as in Austria) or simply countered by reasoned argument and evidence (as in the UK).

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Freedom of speech: Is the criminalization of holocaust denial consistent with the notion of freedom of speech?

[]

[]

Yes

Argument:Holocaust denial is dangerous for many reasons:

• Those who deny the Holocaust are usually anti-Semitic: They usually regard it as a myth spread by Jews to justify the creation of Israel. The idea of a “Jewish conspiracy” encourages suspicion, hatred and discrimination towards Jews.
• Holocaust denial is distressing and offensive to Holocaust survivors and the relatives, friends and descendants of those who died.
• Holocaust denial implies that the Nazi regime was less evil than usually thought: this makes Fascist ideologies seem more acceptable to modern voters. This third point is particularly significant at a time when far-right movements are gaining popularity, especially in eastern Germany. These harms necessitate the banning of Holocaust denial.

[]

[]

No

Freedom of speech and freedom of academic inquiry are infringed by criminalization of holocaust denial: The proposition’s “harms” are not sufficient to justify criminalizing Holocaust denial. First, if it can be proved that a person who denies the Holocaust is encouraging hatred of Jews, they should be tried under laws against inciting racial/religious hatred, which exist in many countries already: there is no need for a separate offence of Holocaust denial. If it cannot be proved that a person who denies the Holocaust is encouraging hatred of Jews, it is wrong to punish him/her for doing so. Second, people have no right to be protected from distressing views; such a right would mean that many kinds of speech had to be banned, in case someone found them distressing. Third, it is better to use open debate to show why Holocaust deniers are wrong and Fascist ideologies are dangerous. David Irving’s leading opponents, Deborah Lipstadt and Richard Evans, did not support his imprisonment. They believed it was more important that he be shown to be wrong, than that he be punished for expressing incorrect opinions.

While Holocaust denial may be dangerous if it gained public support, the government's responsibility should be in fighting this with logic and reasoning opposed to a ban: Rather, it means that the State has a responsibility to ensure that the public are exposed to the arguments that show that Holocaust deniers are wrong. This is best done through compulsory History teaching about the Holocaust in schools.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Proof of holocaust: Is it possible to prove the occurrence of the Holocaust?

[]

[]

Yes

It is possible to prove objectively that the Holocaust happened: All reputable historians accept this.

[]

[]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Value of debate: Does allowing debate over the holocaust legitimize the position of holocaust deniers?

[]

[]

Yes

To “debate” the Holocaust implies that there are two reasonable viewpoints on the issue: This is not the case: there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the Holocaust did not happen. If reputable historians debate with Holocaust deniers, it implies that the claims of Holocaust deniers have sufficient merit to be considered on the same level as interpretations based upon a fair reading of historical evidence. Holocaust denial can therefore only be addressed through the criminal law.

It is impossible to deal with Holocaust deniers through reasoned intellectual debate, as the opposition suggest: Holocaust deniers are not interested in historical enquiry and reasoned evaluation of evidence. They distort, ignore and invent evidence to reach the conclusions they want (i.e. that the Holocaust did not happen). Proper historians seek to consider evidence to reach conclusions, rather than working in reverse. Holocaust deniers refuse to be persuaded by debate. Debate therefore does not stop Holocaust deniers spouting their dangerous myths: it is necessary to use criminal penalties to stop them from doing so.

Impressionable members of the public, particularly children, must be protected from the views of Holocaust deniers: Holocaust deniers are often able self-publicists. We cannot assume that members of the public will hear academic rebuttals of Holocaust deniers. It would be highly dangerous if Holocaust deniers gained public support (the reasons for this are outlined under 1 above): Holocaust denial must therefore be banned.

[]

[]

No

Debating the matter does not mean that Holocaust denial will appear a legitimate intellectual position: In fact, it will be shown to be wholly without merit and Holocaust deniers will be exposed as anti-Semitic liars. It is dangerous to argue that the matter should not be debated: Holocaust deniers will say that this is an admission that academic argument is not strong enough to defeat their beliefs.

The vast majority of people are convinced by reasoned argument: Open debate will convince the general public that Holocaust denial is without merit. It is then relatively unimportant that a small number of people obstinately refuse to accept that the Holocaust happened. In any case, the proposition will not be able to make this small number of people renounce their views simply by imprisoning them.

Just because ideas are dangerous does not mean they should be banned: This does not mean it should be banned. Rather, it means that the State has a responsibility to ensure that the public are exposed to the arguments that show that Holocaust deniers are wrong. This is best done through compulsory History teaching about the Holocaust in schools.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Slippery slope concerns: Is it wrong to be concerned about the criminalization of holocaust denial turning into a "slippery slope" in which other event deniers are criminalized?

[]

[]

Yes

There is nothing wrong with criminalizing the denial of other historical events, but the Holocaust is a priority: However, the Holocaust is currently unique in terms of the certainty that it happened, its scale and its effects on current politics (i.e. the rise of the Far Right).

Evidence is a precondition for an argument's legitimate presentation: If scholars can support their views with evidence, they have nothing to fear from laws against the denial of historical events. If they cannot support their views with evidence, they should not express them.

[]

[]

No

Slippery slope: If Holocaust denial is criminalized, what stops the criminalization of other historical events? There are many historical events that have modern political implications. Criminalizing denial of all these events would stifle academic discussion. Scholars would be afraid to question existing theories in case they were punished.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Effects of criminalization: Would the indirect effects of criminalizing holocaust denial be positive?

[]

[]

Yes

The opposition’s claim about martyrdom lacks factual basis: It was feared that David Irving would become a martyr after his conviction in Austria, but this has not happened (as of June 2006). Imprisonment has prevented him from spouting his views and he has disappeared into obscurity.

[]

[]

No

Conspiracy theories are only strengthened if it appears that the justice system is being used to stop people expressing their views: Neo-Nazi groups will say that the criminalization of Holocaust denial is part of an ongoing conspiracy to hide what they wrongly believe to be the truth. Those who are punished under the law will be regarded as martyrs. It is better that they be defeated in debate and thereby relegated to obscurity.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Effects of decriminalization: Would it be dangerous or harmful to decriminalize holocaust denial where it is currently criminalized?

[]

[]

Yes

Where Holocaust denial is currently illegal, it would be especially dangerous to decriminalize it: Neo-Nazi groups would interpret this as a government concession. They would say that it showed that the government was finally admitting that there was good evidence that the Holocaust did not happen.

[]

[]

No

Holocaust denial should be decriminalized where it is currently illegal: Governments should make it abundantly clear that they are doing this because debate is a better way to defeat Holocaust deniers, and not because they believe there is any merit in Holocaust deniers’ claims.

[]

References:

[]

Motions:

• This House believes that denial of the Holocaust should be a criminal offence
• This House would jail those who deny genocide
• That free speech must have limits

[]

This debate in legislation, policy, and the real world:

[]

See also on Debatepedia:

[]

External links and resources:

• Websites about Holocaust denial and how it should be addressed: Anti-Defamation League site on Holocaust denial
• BBC webpage on the Holocaust
• Documentary resources on Nazi genocide and its denial in French and English
• The Holocaust History Project
• Irving versus Lipstadt: reports and transcripts on the 2000 libel trial
• The Nizkor Project
• Article in The Jewish Week justifying to American readers why some European countries criminalize Holocaust denial
• Economist editorial arguing that Holocaust denial should not be a crime
• Websites which deny the Holocaust, in whole or in part: Campaign for Radical Truth in History
• Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
• David Irving’s website includes free downloads of several of Irving’s books
• Zundelsite - the website of Ernst Zundel, in English and German

[]

Books:

• Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial ^{Richard Evans}
• Holocaust denial and the law ^{Robert Kahn}
• Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory ^{Deborah Lipstadt}
• My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier ^{Deborah Lipstadt}
• Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? ^{Michael Shermer}