Yesterday, an Austrian court sentenced a British historian, David Irving, to three years in prison. His crime? He dared to deny the Holocaust, the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis. Specifically, Irving has been accused of denying that the Nazis used gas chambers.
The case is, to put it mildly, unfortunate for all those governments, organizations and individuals who in response to the blasphemous Danish cartoons row have vigorously championed the right of free speech. The Irving case could not have come at a more inconvenient time for them since it exposes a fatal flaw in their argument. Free speech clearly has its limitations. It all depends on the subject and where you are. Deny the Holocaust in nine European countries and you could end up in jail; ridicule Islam in those same countries and you are exercising your right to freedom of expression. Free speech is clearly a highly subjective concept in certain areas of Europe and the West in general.
The fact that Irving yesterday pleaded guilty — having changed his mind about the gas chambers — alters nothing. The case reeks of double standard. The Europeans trumpet the right to insult Muslims in the name of free speech but anyone who dares to use that right to question the Holocaust will be punished.
This sticks in the throat, presumably even that of the Austrians who, like the Germans, take a hard line on Holocaust denial. It has to be one or the other. Either there should be no restrictions whatsoever on free speech (other than incitement to violence) in which case these Holocaust denial laws should be abolished or the countries that have them should have the courage to admit that they are biased. We all know that Israel would baulk at the Holocaust laws being wiped off the statute books in Europe. It has exploited the slaughter of Europe’s Jews during World War II to create a sense of guilt and ensure its own political and financial support. It has been brazen and revolting in doing so — and it is the Palestinians who have suffered as a result, paying the price for European guilt. But do the Austrians, Germans and other Europeans really believe that the only way to respond to those who question the Holocaust is by locking them up? Do they have to play Israel’s game? In the immediate aftermath of World War II and the horror of the Nazis’ “Final Solution,” the anti-Holocaust laws were understandable; the Austrians and the Germans needed a total break with the past. But even then, the laws were untenable for societies supposedly wedded to “free speech.”
In normal circumstances, the Irving case would have attracted little international attention. Bizarre and inconsistent, yes; worthy of comment, no. But the free speech argument championed by Europe in the wake of the cartoons row changes everything. We realize that the Austrians, Germans, Swiss, French, Belgians and others are unlikely to heed a Saudi voice pointing out the folly and inconsistency of their Holocaust denial laws. But what they cannot deny is that, contrasted with their views on the cartoons, they literally scream hypocrisy.
