There can be little doubt that Holocaust deniers or those who seek to revise "history" in relation to the Holocaust are to be treated with contempt. They are bigots, racists, often plain dumb and obsessed about the position they have taken despite the overwhelming evidence showing they are plain wrong.
This op-ed piece by Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Party's home affairs spokesman, in The Independent considers the case of Australian Frederick Toben and the EU's policies with regard to Holocaust denial:
"The case of the odious Holocaust-denier Dr Frederick Toben is destined to become a cause célèbre precisely because such hard cases test fundamental liberal principles. "I disapprove of what you say," said Voltaire, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is my position on Dr Toben.
Dr Toben's views about the Holocaust are offensive, ugly and wrong. But freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberal democracy without which all the other freedoms flounder. We restrict that freedom at our peril and only in extreme circumstances (such as incitement to racial hatred and violence).
Much of my political life I have spent fighting racism including anti-semitism. But I now find myself oddly defending Dr Toben's right to deny that the Holocaust existed, and to refuse his extradition from Britain to Germany under a European arrest warrant, a decision that will be made on Monday.
In Dr Toben's case, the European arrest warrant is being used to detain someone who lives in Australia and who was changing planes at Heathrow, but is accused of the offence of Holocaust denial in Germany. Dr Toben has not committed an offence under British law or indeed under the law of 17 of the 27 European Union member states. I respect the right of Germany, Austria and others to criminalise Holocaust denial, but I do not want to imitate them. That is why our courts should refuse extradition.
The legal controversy does not end with the use of the warrant. Dr Toben is accused in Germany but his offence is to post on an Australian website. Germany has taken on itself the role of censor, because of the capacity to download content in Germany. It is hard to see where such an attempt to extend jurisdiction might end, or what its chilling effects on freedom of speech might ultimately be."
This op-ed piece by Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Party's home affairs spokesman, in The Independent considers the case of Australian Frederick Toben and the EU's policies with regard to Holocaust denial:
"The case of the odious Holocaust-denier Dr Frederick Toben is destined to become a cause célèbre precisely because such hard cases test fundamental liberal principles. "I disapprove of what you say," said Voltaire, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is my position on Dr Toben.
Dr Toben's views about the Holocaust are offensive, ugly and wrong. But freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberal democracy without which all the other freedoms flounder. We restrict that freedom at our peril and only in extreme circumstances (such as incitement to racial hatred and violence).
Much of my political life I have spent fighting racism including anti-semitism. But I now find myself oddly defending Dr Toben's right to deny that the Holocaust existed, and to refuse his extradition from Britain to Germany under a European arrest warrant, a decision that will be made on Monday.
In Dr Toben's case, the European arrest warrant is being used to detain someone who lives in Australia and who was changing planes at Heathrow, but is accused of the offence of Holocaust denial in Germany. Dr Toben has not committed an offence under British law or indeed under the law of 17 of the 27 European Union member states. I respect the right of Germany, Austria and others to criminalise Holocaust denial, but I do not want to imitate them. That is why our courts should refuse extradition.
The legal controversy does not end with the use of the warrant. Dr Toben is accused in Germany but his offence is to post on an Australian website. Germany has taken on itself the role of censor, because of the capacity to download content in Germany. It is hard to see where such an attempt to extend jurisdiction might end, or what its chilling effects on freedom of speech might ultimately be."
Comments