If we are concerned about freedom of press in China and the Middle East, why not in Europe, too?
omg. Apparently, in Austria and Germany, you can be fined and imprisoned for publicly denying the Holocaust. While I absolutely know the Holocaust occurred, doesn't "free speech" mean that you have a right to say it didn't? (and by "you", I of course mean our consistent contratrian Peter). This fascinates me, friends. Fascinates me. Maybe we only value "free speech" when it means people speaking like us.
Voltaire held, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Good thing he is 200 years gone.
Thoughts?
For more info on this, check out the nytimes article about it ("Austrian Court Sentences Holocaust Denier to Prison", NYT, February 20, 2006).
posted by Bird at 3:51 PM
8 Comments:
"Freedom of speech" can be only vaild within a certain frame. "Freedom of speech" is a democratic right and whenever someone uses this democratic right AGAINST democracy and thus tries to knock out the system that allows him/her to do so, it must be forbidden. In Germany this theory being one of the grounds our constitution is based on, is called "Wehrhafte Demokratie".
When someone says Holocaus has never happened he/she
1. hurts a whole lot of people
2. disrespects historic facts
3. and most important: does not accept the roots of our constitution. Our constitution is mainly based on the experience from the 2nd World War. Someone denying these grounds, denies our constitution and thus Freedom of Speech.
We have some certain responsibility towards the victims of the holocaus and it includes that we do not let someone say: "Hey, you are fucking liars" All the things you claim to have suffered from have never happened."
Anyway, interesting topic. Cause you could say now that China`s constitution works the same way out, just not in democratic aspects, but in another political system. Still, die mechanism of the argumentation ist the same, which would make my above written things look wrong.
BUT: Democracy is THAT political system allowing most people the most. So it is the best in my eyes. It is probably not the best system ever, but still...the best we have.
Interesting topic.
By the way: Do you know that the political correct term for "Holocaust" is "Shoa"? I have never known that "Holocaust" might be not political correct that`s why I was surprised when I got to know it.
Stefanie, is this you writing? If so, it is absolutely shaming how incredible your english is!!! Ohmygosh, you write like a native speaker (better, actually!)!! I would do almost anything to able to communicate in a second language as fluidly as you write in English--wow!
And thanks for your interesting input into the Holocaust/shoa issue. I didn't realize that the German constitution prohibits denying the genocide of the Jews; we're not allowed to make derogatory comments about killing the President, so I guess "freedom of speech" is necessarily limited-- at least to a certain extent-- everywhere.
I had never seen the term "shoa" until your entry. That is fascinating-- a quick check on google indicates that "shoa" means "calamity" in Hebrew. I couldn't find anything about why the term "holocaust" would be offensive, so I can only guess-- is it because traditionally the word has meant an offering in fire to God. Is it, the, offensive because it implies that the Jews were a sacrificial offering of Germany to God... interesting... on the flip side, because "shoa" is a Hebrew word, does choosing this term marginalize the others who were killed in the camps-- homosexuals, political resisitors, gypsies, persons with disabilities, etc? I guess it is impossible to find one term that satisfies everyone for everything... hmmmm...
Jason- as a descendent of Jewish refugees from Germany (poland?)- I am particularly interested in hearing your opinions on this. Please chime in, friend!
I feel this issue is much like slander under civil juristiction, but the State would be representing the slanderees?
Bird-
1. You think I'm Polish?? Do you even know what high school I went to, friend??
2. I'm not sure how I feel about the politics surrounding the word Holocaust. Sho'ah is much more neutral, because it doesn't have that underlying religious implication of sacrifice which is completely out of place. But is it a problem that sho'ah is Hebrew? While it doesn't intentionally exclude other groups, it may suggest that Jews had their own exceptional experience apart from other victims. As someone who would have been targeted for half a dozen reasons, I"m just not sure. Also, in one class we read a book about religion and the slave trade which referred to that phenomenon as "the African spiritual holocaust." It received a lot of criticism from its use of that word. Its very interesting that THE Holocaust event has co-opted that word. Filing this one under Unresolved...
Why are you so insulted that I think that you *might* be Polish?! I am Polish and proud!
(resist the urge to publish a polish joke as a response to this declaration of ethnic pride!)
I think the reason why "Shoah" should be preferred before "Holocaust" is that
1.) the term "Shoah" shows the SINGULARITY of the event, whereas the term "Holocaust" also bears the meaning of repetition in it. Singualarity of the event is a very discussed matter in Europe / Germany, that is why "Shoah" is probably preferred. (This is why no one may ever compare the Holocaust/Shoah to anything else. It would make the event somehow normal and it is a taboo to see the shoah/holocaust as sth. normal. that is why singularity is such an important aspect.)
2. the term "Holocaust" bears in it the meaning of a religious act (to sacrifice someone/something by burning it) and religious acts have make sense (to those who do them) and they are not in vain. They have an aim (or however you wanna call it). If one uses "Holocaust" for the event we are talking about then he/she would say that this event would make sense/ have an aim or anything. This again would hurt the political correct opinion that this event was nothing but senseless and stupid.
You just cannot say certain things here, I do not know how it is dealed with in America, but a bit more relaxed I assume. By the why Steven Spielberg`s foundation also prefers "Shoah" (which I mention cause he is American).
Anyway, I have not been aware of the fact concerning these two terms until our teacher was talking about it and most people plus media use "Holocaust". Still... for those who know (like victims or otherwise concerned people) they are aware of the distinction of the terms. I would compare it to the thing whether someone knows that it is political incorrect to say "eskimo" and that you should say "inuit" or not. Those who are not aware of the fact say eskimo and still they do not want to offend them. (I have doubts anyone has any interest to offend these people living so far away from us.)
But that`s the thing with political correctness.
(Hi bird, yes, me, writing.)
Stefanie
I just saw a movie in my German class, which actually turned out to be pretty good, about a similar case in Canada. I suggest you at least check out the synopsis: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9bXIgZGVhdGh8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1
It is about a man who revolutionized capital punishment in the US to make it more humane. He reformed systems in many states for electricution, lethal injection, gallows and gas chambers. At one point he was asked by a defense council in Canada to research and testify in a case where a (ger)man claimed no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz. This man went to Poland and determined the krematoriums could not have been used as gas chambers (this is of course his opinion). Subsequently he was attacked by a whole bunch of groups and hasn't been able to find work anywhere. The way I look at is that he honestly believes in his findings, and was simply providing evidence, and by no means opinions (antisemetic or otherwise) to the court. He was basically black-balled for aiding in the defense of someone who was being prosecuted for saying what he believed to be true.
Post a Comment
<< Home