So this week ‘historian’ David Irving was convicted of holocaust denial and sentenced to three years in prison. Now David Irving is not only a liar, a racist, a misogynist and almost every other repugnant category one can fall into in this modern world and given that he knowingly came to speak in Austria despite an outstanding warrant he is hardly a sympathetic figure. However, the guarantee of free speech is only as strong as the protection that is given to the most unpopular opinions.

Laws against holocaust denial have always been a bad idea. Yes neo-nazis are still a threat in germany and holocaust denial seems popular in the arab world but making holocaust denial illegal just makes the activity attractively subversive. There is always a certain temptation to believe the government/society is part of a massive conspiracy, e.g., UFO conspiracy theorists in the states, and laws about holocaust denial just encourage people to vent their conspiracy theories through holocaust denial. The representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center on the radio argued for the laws on the grounds that holocaust denial is still a real political football kicked around by people like the President of Iran but it seems clear, especially in light of the cartoon situation that having laws against holocaust denial just fuels this sense of outrage against the ‘special treatment’ given to the jews. Convicting someone now of holocaust denial just inflames the fires of anti-semitism in the arab world and a sense of unfairness over the reaction to the cartoons.

Apart from the point about holocaust denial still being a real political danger (I agree but the laws just make it worse) the representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center made two more unconvincing arguments (though to his credit he was very supportive of free speech and seemed to be somewhat half-hearted about these arguments). The first was that the context in germany and austria, where the holocaust actually happened, is considerably different than the context in the US. I don’t doubt that this is true but this is just another way to say people are really really offended. If this argument carried water it would apply just the same in the cartoon controversy. After all in an islamic context, or even a context with a sizable islamic minority mocking the prophet is a much more serious matter and unless you are just dismissing islam out of hand (which I’m willing to do just as with christianity but I suspect most people aren’t) the subjects of mockery are just as serious. If you really believe the prophet is the most important messenger of god he really is more important than the murder of millions of people, after all god could have intervened to stop the holocaust but chose not to do so but did choose to intervene to speak to mohammed. The representative’s other argument, that these laws ought to be given respect because they are the will of a democratic nation is particularly ironic in this context. Hitler, after all, was democratically elected in the Wiemar republic and as organizations like the Wiesenthal center are always reminding us the holocaust didn’t happen despite the objections of the german people but with their complicity. Democracies make plenty of bad laws and the will of the people is no defense for a bad decision.

Why get worked up about the situation? After all some scum-bag ends up in jail and there isn’t any important or useful speech chilled by the holocaust denial laws. We should be concerned because anti-semitism is still a serious concern. The perception of special treatment for jews is only going to inflame anti-Semitic views among arabs, especially in light of the cartoon controversy. Worse, I fear that in Europe these laws increase the chance of a resurgence of anti-semitism. There is nothing that fuels a movement like the sense of being the victims of unjust repression, the punitive treaties after world war I resulted in the nazi state and laws about holocaust denial may encourage a new generation of neo-nazi movements. Finally the possibility that serious debate will be chilled should not be dismissed out of hand. The holocaust was not localized in space or time and defining exactly what counts as holocaust denial is always going to be difficult. Though currently holocaust denial only seems to encompass denying obvious truths about the nazi death camps there is always the danger that in the future this law will creep to encompass more.

For consistancy’s sake, but also to discourage anti-semitism Austria, Germany and others need to repeal their laws against holocaust denial.