The Insignificance of Holocaust Denial (by Arash Rowshanzamir)
              

Whether as a result of the assertions of a disgruntled British historian or the ranting of a President of an Islamic Republic, the issue of Holocaust denial has become a central concern regarding the question of free speech (or lack thereof) in both the developed and developing world. Many incorrectly assume that the term merely refers to the outright denial of the Holocaust. This nonsensical practice, however, usually makes several additional claims. Believers also argue that the numbers of Jews killed from the period of 1939-1945 was grossly exaggerated, that the persecution faced by the Germans at the hands of the Allies was just as significant, that any wrongdoings were carried out without Hitler's knowledge, and that notions of extermination were fabricated, or even invented, for the benefit of Israel.

Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offence in 14 countries including Britain, Austria, and Israel, to name a few. The issue, though, has only recently caught the attention of the media, mostly thanks to David Irving. Irving is a well-known British historian who is about to commence a three-year prison sentence for remarks he made in 1989 regarding the Holocaust, denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. A case can be made that there is a need to monitor the claims made by Mr. Irving and others who think like him; however, rendering such outlandish claims as criminal offences is, at least in the opinion of this writer, superflous.

That is not to say that these claims are to any degree legitimiate or that they should be taken seriously at all for that matter. Denying the greatest calamity in modern history is unintelligent to say the least. But the loss of credibility and the ridicule that will inevitably confront anyone who makes such assertions will serve as sufficient forms of punishment. Furthermore, Holocuast denial does not have any tangible consequences. The thought that there are those who think this way, and that their ideas are given public attention, may rightfully anger both those who deem the study of history a serious endeavor and anyone who has been either directly or indirectly affected by the Holocaust. Nevertheless, denying the Holocaust or distorting any factual information relating to it may upset many, but is considerably different than perpetrating physical harm.

This issue becomes really intereseting when a comparison is drawn between it and the recent publication of several cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam in a less-than-flattering manner. Both, of course, are central to the aforementioned issue of free speech, with the West and the Islamic worlds holding completely opposite views as to what is a legitimate expression of free speech and what is criminal in scope.

However, the differences between depicting the Prophet Muhammad in satirical cartoons and denying the Holocaust far outnumber the similarities. In last month's issue, one of our writers argued that the upheavals following the publications of the cartoons were not surprising, given that depicting the Prophet is a very sensitive issue for those who adhere to the Islamic faith. In this assertion he is absolutely correct. In fact, several other instances in which there is a severe reaction to a criticial publication come readily to mind. In 1989, a fatwa was levied upon Salman Rushdie, a British writer, for blasphemous references in his book, The Satanic Verses. Two years ago, Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, was assasinated after producing a film that critized the treatment of women in Islam. Although these two cases are extreme examples, the message portrayed by both is the same: Muslims take their religion extremely seriously. The reaction this time around was different only in scope. Ensuing protests resulted in loss of life. Several countries were so enraged that they actually decided to alter their national policy towards Denmark. All of this, though, should have been predicted, and those who published these cartoons should have more carefully considered the potential consequences of their actions.

The reaction to the Irving trail and to the conference being held in Iran was noticeable and moderate. There were no mass protests to report, and no lives were lost. Mr. Irving's assertions proved solely that his credibility as a professional historian should be seriously questioned, if not indefinately compromised. Furthermore, the conference that was held in Iran clearly demonstrates that politicians will do anthing to divert public attention away from serious issues if their tenure has been politically less-than-successful.

The fact that Western society deems a distasteful rendition of Islam's Prophet as a representation of free speech is surprising when one considers that many of the same people believe that those who deny the Holocaust should have their liberty revoked. That there are people out there who deny the Holocaust is unfortunate. But so, too, is the fact that in some countries, denying the Holocaust warrants criminal persecution. Making the argument for what does, and what does not, constitute free speech may be on the agenda for some, but right now, there are far more significant things to worry about.

Sources

"Irving expands on Holocaust views." BBC News. 28 Feb. 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm.

If you wish to respond to an article or contribute to a future issue, please contact Hannah Renglich at editor@fiveminutestomidnight.org.

[ issue contents ] [ fmm home ] [ send feedback ] [ tell a friend ]