Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Holocaust denial, criminalisation of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

In spite of the obvious and incontrovertible evidence that the Holocaust was one of the most horrific events in human history, there remains a small number of radical neo-Nazi politicians, historians and their supporters who seek to deny that the Holocaust took place. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not a debate about that question, but about whether denying the Holocaust ought to be illegal. That is already the position in 17 European countries (most notably, Germany and France), and the EU has called for others to follow suit. In recent years, the view has also become popular in the Middle East as part of a political narrative about Israel, and has been prominently expressed by former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Pros

[1] The Holocaust is not up for debate; it happened, and the evidence is incontrovertible. Where such a historical fact is so well established, no useful purpose can be served by allowing people to say that it did not happen; all this does is cloud the historical record. In particular, any attempts to generate historical debate about the issue must be based on fabrication, lies, or the wilful distorting of evidence.

[2] The denial of the Holocaust causes great pain to Jewish people and those close to them. For them, it is important that there be public recognition of the horrors that were perpetrated against them because of their race, and Holocaust denial undermines that. It is not distant from their lives or unimportant, either because many of them will have been alive during the Holocaust, or they know someone, perhaps an elderly relative, who was in a concentration camp. Moreover, because anti-Semitism is present in society today, Holocaust denial is a constant reminder of the peril of hatred and violence.

[3] Holocaust denial is often a ’dogwhistle’ for other very pernicious views, such as anti-Semitism, racism and homo- phobia. We should not allow people to use this as a recruiting tool towards racist political parties, which are often dangerous and violent; by banning Holocaust denial, we remove an important signalling mechanism for those groups.

[4] As their views depend so strongly on fabrication, lies and rhetoric, Holocaust deniers cannot usefully be drawn into an open public debate; they simply repeat their lies, without engaging with the other view. In consequence, they will not be defeated by more discussion; instead, they must be banned.

Cons

[1] While it cannot be disputed that the Holocaust took place, this does not mean there is no room for an important and useful historical debate about the precise manner in which it happened, the precise numbers of dead, etc.; the recent discovery that the number of Jewish ghettos across Europe was much higher than previously believed, for instance, is a good example of how we are still learning lessons about the Holocaust. Banning ’denial’ might have a chilling effect on the willingness to question the various orthodoxies about the Holocaust.

[2] No one has a right not to be offended. Without wishing to trivialise the psychological harm caused by Holocaust denial, the state cannot protect people against it; there are simply too many forms of psychological harm, all different and hard to measure, that the state cannot involve itself. If it were to do so, then all potentially offensive speech acts would have to come within the ambit of the state’s criminal legislation, which would be an unfair restriction on freedom of speech.

[3] While being racist is unpleasant, it is not illegal; we do not ban racist political parties, and we should not seek to do so, because there is a democratic right to free political association; while we may find these views distasteful, that is the price we pay for living in a democracy.

[4] As always with radical and false views, the best way to defeat them is to challenge them in public. As they have no foundation, they will not be able to provide supporting facts, and their views will quickly crumble. When, in 1996, David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt of Penguin Books for libel when she accused him of academic dishonesty, he overwhelmingly lost the case. These ridiculous views are then rightly subject to ridicule, and defeated.

Possible motions

This House would ban Holocaust denial.

This House believes that Holocaust denial is not an acceptable cost of free speech.

This House would never allow the denial of mass human rights abuses.

Related topics

Censorship by the state

Extremist political parties, banning of