I NEVER dreamt I'd be defending a holocaust-denier. But then again I never thought I would need to.The "denier" in question, David Irving, a precocious British historian (aren't they all?), was jailed recently in Austria for denying the Holocaust -- a crime that in Austria, along with 9 other European countries warrants years of prison time.
A rather toadish looking fellow, Irving claimed that the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz might be lower than originally claimed. "Given the ruthless efficiency of the Germans," Irving asks, "If there was an extermination program to kill all the Jews, how come so many survived?" Irving has capitulated somewhat, recanting his earlier theory and favoring instead the idea that the death tolls of the Holocaust (putting it lightly) might be slightly "off".
In November of 2005 -- and here comes the most insidious part -- Irving was arrested in Austria on his way to a university lecture. Although he may look like a disheveled badger, and his views are undeniably despicable, Irving is worth defending for two reasons.
First, the idea of free speech means that Irving's right to deny the Holocaust eclipses the complaints of those to whom such speech might be offensive. Europe should not pretend to loathe all things fascistic while its laws are replete with tactics used by Hitler, Franco, Stalin and Mussolini. By imprisoning Irving, Austria sets a dangerous precedent: that nations can revise history simply by jailing any naysayers. Granted, in this case, Austria has erred on the side of truth, but one should not be so optimistic for future cases. One might recall similar tactics used by Stalin to "revisit" Soviet history -- only Stalin preferred his ubiquitous death squad to prison.
It is disturbing to have to reiterate the right to free speech, and it is infuriating that our ideals are so carelessly tossed aside when most don't agree with the individual in question. And free speech predicated on not offending anyone (or everyone, as it were) is anything but free.
Lord Greville Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said, "Austrian law demands incisive action to protect its citizens from a repeat of the past." Presumably, Austria hopes to avoid ever repeating its brief flirtation with authoritarianism -- a cause certainly not helped by repressing free speech. Of course Holocaust-deniers don't really contribute intelligent discourse, but they do ensure that the foundations of free expression are intact and resilient. If sunlight is the best disinfectant for truth, then jailing dissidents only shades their absurd messages from the light of public opinion. Let them speak -- idiocy needs advocates, too.
This brings us to the second defense ofIrving. President Bush's shameful surrender to Muslim tyrants during the Danish cartoon fiasco and Irving's unjust imprisonment indicate that we have not yet destroyed the remaining outposts of fascism, nor have we established free speech is always well worth defending.
Imagine if the Bush administration began systematically jailing individuals who deny the genocide of the American Indians or, perhaps equally conceivable, imagine if we jailed those who admit it. I can envision the protests now.
In fact, the University recently received an apt sermon on the nature of free expression. This Monday and Tuesday, a pair of self-styled "born-again Christian" activists presented their message in the amphitheatre before a modest audience of students. After Jeremiah, a 60-year-old preacher from Jacksonville, Florida, kindly reminded students that they were, in fact, "Going to burn, in hell, in flames. Why? Because most of you are just stupid." "What gives you the right to rebuke me?" one student asked. The reply: "Because I breathe air, buddy."
Our deranged comrade is absolutely right, and it's depressing that the most vocal advocate for free speech, in this case, had nothing worthwhile to say. Nevertheless, it took a chain-smoking, myth-spewing senior citizen to remind this student that free speech always upstages our sensibilities.
It's typical at this point for concerned citizens to write letters saying how supporting Irving is tantamount to supporting fascism and any advocacy on his behalf reveals that the author, of course, hates freedom. But these citizens are missing the point.
Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The same goes for me, and so should it for Austria as well.
Austria ought to release Mr. Irving and banish finally the remnants of fascism from its laws. Instead, we have only empty rhetoric. If our vapid defenses of free speech aren't met with more than feel-good nonsense and platitudes, then our Constitution is nothing, to use Shakespeare's language, but sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Daniel Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
GARVIE: U.Va. Health is rapidly falling behind on its responsibility to patients
By Adeline Garvie | YesterdayWhile gender-affirming care is one of the biggest ways U.Va. Health is falling short, it is not the only one.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
2 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | 3 days agoAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
