"The sentencing of the British historian David Irving to three years
imprisonment for making a statement some 17 years ago in Austria that
there were no gas chambers and crematoria in the death camps of Poland
must come as a surprise to many, especially the younger generation.

Some might even ask what's the big deal? Older persons however will no
doubt recall the last days of the last war and the early post-war
years and the newsreels and newspapers of the day, as well as the
several dispassionate historical accounts. That anyone, particularly a
historian, might even suggest that this mass murder of several million
mainly Jewish people of different nationalities, Gypsies and
homosexuals did not actually take place seems beyond belief or
explanation.

But as historians will note there are often different interpretations
of history, with some being very much coloured by the personality of
the interpreter. Indeed, Mr Irving's peers have been extremely
critical of his work suggesting that his right wing convictions have
led to his version of the tragic events in Europe. He actually
unsuccessfully sued one of his critics for libel. But Holocaust denial
as a crime? Yes, we must remember the role of both Germany and Austria
in the genocide of six million. It is their way of remembering the
racist genocide.

We must count ourselves extremely fortunate in this country where we
seem to be able to control some of the worst manifestations of
negative human behaviour. Our libel and defamation laws may be
colonial relics but by and large the daily print media generally act
responsibly, although libel suits are not unheard of. Many are brought
simply to gag the media and rarely come to trial.

The issue is not the same with some of our radio stations where there
is often discourse that is libellous of others. Sometimes statements
can be vitriolic and hateful. In theory there are official measures
that may be taken to regulate offensive behaviour, such as cancelling
a transmission licence, but the media, and many citizens, prefer media
self-regulation. But there is an issue that we must remember. Free
speech is one of the pillars of democracy. This is why our
Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. This is why our
parliamentarians are given almost absolute freedom to speak their
minds.

But as many have suggested freedom is not an absolute freedom and must
always be tempered by concern for the effects of what one says on
others who may have different views or perceptions, be they of
different religions or ethnicities, or indeed political affiliation.
Perhaps we too might learn from that seemingly remote human tragedy as
we grow as a nation."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198523
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to