Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Far be it for me to defend Holocaust deniers, but in the light of the recent European defense of free speech (however tepid it may have been) over the Danish cartoons, I have a lot of trouble with this:
Right-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison Monday after admitting to an Austrian court that he denied the Holocaust — a crime in the country where Hitler was born.
Feel free to apply the slippery slope argument as you will. How long before the cartoonists, who's right to publish the controversial cartoons was essentially upheld by Europe at large, suddenly find themselves in the same boat as Irving?
I obviously find his historical premise ridiculous and seriously question his scholarship, but prison for denying what obviously happened?
No.
He should be treated as a laughingstock and certainly not taken seriously (which seems punishment enough to someone who calls themselves an "historian), but imprisoning him is nothing more than an attempt by the state to control thought. Big Brother in the flesh.
How is that worse than what the regime Irving was writing about did with intellectuals of that era?
It is competely anti-liberty and totally unacceptable and ought to be denounced by everyone who believes that all speech, and especially that which we disagree, should be protected.
These Holocaust Denial laws are the poorest defense of truth possible. They allow individuals like Irving, who have written bad history, to clothe themselves with the appearance of martyrdom. Galileo is supported by empirical evidence. Irving cannot even explain the photographs above. But laws establishing "official truth" create categories of the Unmentionable into which subjects like the Jihad, feminism, abortion and Global Warming — all the assertions, half-truths and humbug of the world — will presently seek refuge. The best defense of the truth of the holocaust is an uncompromising commitment to free speech. Unless free speech is protected then some of the very evils Hitler sought to foist upon the world will be reintroduced in the name of fighting his memory.
(HT: OrneryWP)
Neo-neocon does some in depth research on the subject and Irving, and does a great job of weighing the arguments of both sides. I recommend her article — very thorough and well written as usual. In the end, however, she concludes:
So it seems to me that the only remedy is free speech in the theater of ideas. We must believe in the ability of truth to ultimately triumph, and in our ability to wage war against those who would preach hate and follow through on it with destruction.
I guess the rationalle for these laws is that Hitler came from austria, and just as the Nazi party was banned, the government wanted to do everything it could to prevent a re-emmergence of the fascist movement.
You should be able to say emperor Saladin came from mars as far as i’m concerned.
What’s the big reveal here? We’ve known that Europe (and Canada for that matter) didn’t have any true freedom of speech...anyone who looked at the proposed EU constitution saw it plain as day.
The typical right-wing critique of Europe is that it is a hot bed of anti-Semitism, and, not concidentally, that it coddles Muslim extremists. Here is a typical right-wing post on the subject, from Powerline in 2004:
The Jerusalem Post reports that Jewish leaders have again appealed to the European Union to take a lead in stamping out anti-semitism on the continent. Nobel Peace Prize winner and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel stated the "Jewish communities in Europe live in fear." If the experiences of members of my wife’s family in France are any guide, Wiesel’s statement is no exaggeration. The situation results from a combination of the virulent and lawless anti-semitism of the growing Arab population in Europe and the indifference, or worse, of Europe’s authorities, who hate Israel and don’t particularly care for Jews.
Now, I believe that locking someone for what he or she said is itself a crime. But hopefully, one small benefit of the Irving episode is that it will finally put to rest any notion that Europe is one bid cauldron of anti-Semitism. After all, Europe is simultaneously defending the right of cartoonists to publish drawings offensive to Muslims and imprisoning holocaust deniers. Think about it - say something bad about Muslims, you are defended. Say something bad about Jewish persons, and you end up in jail.
Hopefully wingers will reconsider their view of Europe in light of the Irving matter. I won’t hold my breath, however.
The typical right-wing critique of Europe is that it is a hot bed of anti-Semitism, and, not concidentally, that it coddles Muslim extremists.
A) We’re not Powerline fans as you might have noticed.
B) We really don’t care what you consider to be a "typical right-wing critque" given your penchant for hyperbole, stereotyping and strawmen.
C) It’s really irrelevant to the point at hand, that is free speech is free speech, even if you don’t like what the person is saying. And Wretchard, typically seen as being from the right-wing, as well as this blog, which you consistently identify as right-wing, seem to be carrying that message.
I’m currently looking for a publisher in Austria to help me publish a small picture-book I have been planning for. It’s entitled Mohammed meets the Fuhrer. The story will be geared toward kids to help them learn about history while teaching tolerance. A better description can be found on my blog.
mkultra, permit me to suggest obtaining your news beyond just CNN and other mainstream U.S. media. They tend to omit certain things that expose the face of real anti-Semitism.
European Jews couldn’t care less about Irving and his ilk. What they would like is for France to get serious about the regular arson (often bombing) of synagogues, among other acts of physical violence. So if you really think Europe is some haven for the Jewish people just because they’re putting a clown behind bars for his stupidity, then please, spare us.
Regarding laws that criminalize "Holocaust denial," I think Jefferson put it best: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." I quoted that (and more) in my blog entry Freedom of thought: it’s most dangerous to the state. Is the truth of the Holocaust so flimsy that laws must compel people to believe it?
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holocaust occurred, and that six million Jews (and others, but principally Jews) were brutally murdered. But if I believe in true liberty, I must accept what Evelyn Hall of the Friends of Voltaire said: "I may disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Note that he did not say "defend what you say," which is key. I must accept that my freedom to speak truth is the same freedom allowing someone to speak non-truth, especially when I am aware the other person is incorrect.
If we are to have true freedom of speech and thought, we must accept that those freedoms allow others to say things which are ignorantly untrue, if not outright lies. Only until such statements cause us injury do we have legal remedies. If someone lies to me in a business transaction, he can be punished for fraud. If someone tells me that the sky is chartreuse, that does not harm me. Similarly, someone can swear by whatever he’d like that the Holocaust never occurred, and I may think him a damn fool, but he has not affected my rights to life, liberty and property. Recall the Jefferson quote I used a few nights ago: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
An excellent post well stated. It is entirely irrelevant who decides they are offended by what someone else has said. One is either able to state freely whatever he likes or he isn’t. Being legally selective about it is ridiculous and facistic. And by the way for those idiots who have bought the idea that facism is right wing, you are either nuts or have never studied facism. Try starting with the NAZI party. It translates as National SOCIALISM... get it? Last time I looked socialism was considered left wing.
I understand the impulse of the Austrians to stop these lies being told about WWII, though I must note that they have managed to portray themselves as the victims of the Third Reich often enough, as if Anschluss were forced upon them.
The truths of the Nazi era are bad enough without modern-day fascists like Irving denying that the events happened, but it’s silly and, in the modern era, totally unenforceable and indefensible. Let the most juvenile claims be made — there are enough people around who understand logic and evidence to know that these deniers are completely dishonest.
I thought I heard that the law that he was convicted under was promulgated after Irving had presented his collection of lies in Austria. If that is so, it is at least as disturbing as the idea that speech is only partially free in Austria.
Bernie, National Socialism was a form of state corporatism. It had nothing to do with liberal socialism.
Every country has a right to make it’s own laws, and I believe in the rule of law. While the right to free speech is paramount, every country has exceptions. In America, it may someday be illegal to burn the U.S. flag. At this very moment, it is illegal to walk around naked in most countries, even if you are carrying a sign protesting some injustice. There are always limits to speech.
The reason for this limiting law in Austria is clear...they produced Hitler, and their people support any law that makes certain people realize they don’t support anything he did. So, really, the law is more reactive/apologetic than anything else. But I have no problem with throwing someone into jail for denying the holocaust. Idiots like that probably don’t belong on the streets of any civilized country. Obviously, if you extend the law and make "debatable" free speech illegal, such as the aforementioned feminism, global warming, etc. then there will be trouble.
If the people of Austria want to overturn this speech-limiting law, it is their right (and only theirs) to do so. For us to question it is fine, but the fact is that the law is on the books and they can enforce it if they want to.
After all, Europe is simultaneously defending the right of cartoonists to publish drawings offensive to Muslims
Really? Because throughout Europe we can find as many examples of backing down, shutting newspapers, sacking editors for running the toons as you can find examples of "defending"....probably more
Thanks for the neo-neocon link. Her article also clears up my confusion about the report I had heard. It was a 1989 warrant that he was arrested under, not, as I had gotten the impression, a 1989 law.
European Jews couldn’t care less about Irving and his ilk. What they would like is for France to get serious about the regular arson (often bombing) of synagogues, among other acts of physical violence. So if you really think Europe is some haven for the Jewish people just because they’re putting a clown behind bars for his stupidity, then please, spare us.
Nonsense. Irving is part and parcel of the problem. From the Guardian 11/25/03:
But it is the "new" anti-semitism that most disturbs some Jewish leaders because they say it emanates from influential groups such as academics, politicians and the media and is dressed up as criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.
Deborah Lipstadt, the academic who won a libel victory after describing the rightwing historian David Irving as a Holocaust denier, this month described the "new" anti-semitism as directed at the "Rambo Jew, the Jew who is the aggressor".
"What we have seen in these attacks is an obsession with the vilification of Israel; a use of Nazi and Holocaust images to describe Israel and its politics, and a focus on Israel’s failures regarding human rights, while totally ignoring the Arab world’s failures of human rights," she told a conference in Jerusalem.
Irving is the new face of anti-semitism in the Europe, and, as the above excerpt makes clear, it is this new face - academics included - that most worry Jewish leaders. For obvious reasons. To suggest that European Jews are not worried about David Irving and his ilk is to fundamentally misapprehend the problem.
My point was that the Austrians are actually locking up people like Irving. My larger point was that this tends to discredit the right-wing argument that all non-Jewish Europeans are anti-Semtitic and not working to solve the problem of anti-Semitism. (The effort on the part of American wingers to paint all of Europe as anti-Semitic is part of a larger assault on Europe more generally.) While I vehemently disagree with the idea of locking someone up for what the person said, in a weird way the willingness of the Austrian government and - by extension - the Austrian people to lock up an anti-Semite merely for denying the holocaust might bode well for Europe’s overall effort to stem anti-Semitism.
Excellent analysis, Bruce. You cut to the heart of the matter — i.e. free speech is free speech. These sorts of laws are one of the expressed reasons why Muslims feel so persecuted in Europe (whether they are right or wrong).
freelunch:
National Socialism was a form of state corporatism
You don’t seem to understand what either of these terms mean. Bernie was much closer to being correct. Nazi’s restricted the scope of their state-sponored welfare (national as opposed to international; "good" germans and aryans as opposed to all countryman) but they were socialists in the main. While they vehmently opposed other socialist parties, this was a matter of power struggles instead of ideological opposition. In fact, you’ll find that those who typically received the worst approbation from socialists were other socialists ... Frederick Engles was quite famous for his rhetorical jousts with other socialists.
"Corporatism" was in fact more like a "guild" system in which un-elected, state-sponsored experts made decisions for a state’s economic sectors. It had nothing to do with "corporations."
It had nothing to do with liberal socialism.
There is simply no such thing as "liberal socialism" no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig.
What a shame! freedom of expression has two faces, it is about the muslims it is defended, if it is about another sect or group it is abolished. Hope my idea won’t go far for this confusing double standard FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. EU community, do something about your freedom of expression!
this tends to discredit the right-wing argument that all non-Jewish Europeans are anti-Semtitic
Please give us some examples of this argument, links and all, because I’ve never heard a single conservative say that all European gentiles are anti-Semitic.
It must cost you a bundle to keep filling up those strawmen.
What you are overlooking is that the cartoons were investigated by the Danish police and found not to have broken the law.
How are we overlooking that, or said another way, when did we ever mention "the law"? This isn’t about "the law". It’s about the fundamental right of free speech.
It is therefore reasonable for the Austrian government to say enough is enough, when they catch him on their territory and pursue the outstanding warrent from 1989. And though the charge was kept on file, since they did not pursue an extradition, it is reasonable to assume that they believed they had done enough to prevent a foriegn citizen from stirring up trouble in their country.
Yeah, but according to the article, the law, under which he was convicted, was passed in 1992. Interesting, no?
The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
And it is not a matter of free speech. By Irving’s own admission he became aware of the error of his case in 1992 but this did not stop him from Jew-baiting after that date: a fact proved by the summing up of the judge at the libel trial.
It is precisely a matter for free speech, just as much a matter as neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, IL was a free speech issue.
And to be frank I would rather live in Europe in which free speech is restricted by the law, than in America where the arbitor is the gun.... I refer you to the case of Martin Luther King.
And quite frankly, I’d perfer you there as well. You and Europe deserve each other.
Mr. Irving has as much right to express his opinion whether in Austria, Germany or Timbuctoo as we do in U.S. (so far) Either Germany and Austria and Canada are "democracies’ or they are not. Quit the sham then of spouting ’freedom of speech." There is none.
What is a disgrace is for him to have published all his books in pursuit of the truth, and now he stands in court and debases himself by recanting all he has stood for.
What is most bothersome is that this event of WW II is like a sacred cow and any attempt to investigate is blown sky high Why?
I would rather live in Europe in which free speech is restricted by the law, than in America where the arbitor is the gun.... I refer you to the case of Martin Luther King
I wonder if they can coax President Aminanehabijabidabidad of Iran to visit Austria and possibly put him in prison for denying the Holocaust. Then the laws might be actually worth it.
There is simply no such thing as "liberal socialism" no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig.
What is the correct term for a system that provides for state funded healthcare, state pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, state run education system, progressive taxation, free speech, democratic government, independent judiciary, open markets and private property rights?
How is that worse than what the regime Irving was writing about did with intellectuals of that era?
The last time I checked, the Austrian state wasn’t sending Irving to a concentration camp and stealing his possessions to prop up a war effort... No need to undermine a perfectly good argument with silly inaccurate rhetoric.
As for the idea of some repliers that the Nazis were left wing, I’m afraid you just fell into the deliberate trap the NSDAP set in 1920 - add both National and Socialist to the name, and more people might vote for you. Their policies initially combined some elements of what would traditionally be seen as left and right wing ideas, but with the increasing influence of Hitler within the party and the sidelining of the Strasser brothers, this quickly fell by the wayside, only the name remaining.
Fascism itself began in Italy, not with Hitler at all, and was, economically at least, basically an extension of corporatism, so that description is accurate.
And for those who seem confused, Irving was not prosecuted under a 1992 law, there was an existing warrant for his arrest issued at the time of his previous visit in 1989. Whether a subesquent law was passed is irrelevant to the case.
The last time I checked, the Austrian state wasn’t sending Irving to a concentration camp and stealing his possessions to prop up a war effort... No need to undermine a perfectly good argument with silly inaccurate rhetoric.
Actually I was talking about imprisonment, you know, plain old, simple imprisonment.
No need to make a mountain out of a mole hill, is there?
3 years, is very short, he should be jailed for life! he should be made an example for all those follow his footsteps, it would be good if he dies in jail! zundel should be next! barbaric monster!
PEOPLE LIVING IN THE PAST....MENTAL ILLNESS INCREASES.....AT THE PRESENT WE ARE FACING POVERTY,WARS,IGNORANCE...DO WE HAVE TIME FOR THIS NONESENSE SUBJECTS ...WHO GIVE A F* FOR WHAT HAPPENED 50-60 YEARS AGO?.... will if this is the milking cow that brings food for those that want to keep it running then they had enough out of it and let them find food and milk from others sources ....the cow is old and dry....no more....
What is the correct term for a system that provides for state funded healthcare, state pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, state run education system, progressive taxation, free speech, democratic government, independent judiciary, open markets and private property rights?
A contradiction in terms. Any state that runs state funded healthcare, state pensions, unemployment and health benefits, and a state-run education system must also coerce massive amounts of taxes from its people, and by definition is drastically limiting the market choices of its subjects. There’s no room left for property rights when most of your property is confiscated before you can even allocate it private hands.
But hey, you wanna call free speech and an independent judiciary necessary and sufficient for a government to be "liberal," you go right ahead Sport.
HEH! I’m still laughing about that one. I can’t seem to shake this vision of David Lee Roth singing "I Ain’t Got Nobody" ...
Heh.
What is the correct term for a system that provides for state funded healthcare, state pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, state run education system, progressive taxation, free speech, democratic government, independent judiciary, open markets and private property rights?
No argument here (as to an accurate description of the US). But would you say that’s the result of a conscious decision to be socialist? Or a left-over of once popular (the world over), and now codified socialist ideas combined with a well-grounded system of property rights? Effectively you’re right, Angus. But the definition of "liberal" and that of "socialism" simply don’t comport. That both exist in the same country is the result of this country’s liberalism as opposed to it’s socialist tendencies.
Put another way, true liberalism (i.e. freedom) can tolerate socialism, but socialism can’t tolerate freedom.
As for the idea of some repliers that the Nazis were left wing, I’m afraid you just fell into the deliberate trap the NSDAP set in 1920 - add both National and Socialist to the name, and more people might vote for you. Their policies initially combined some elements of what would traditionally be seen as left and right wing ideas, but with the increasing influence of Hitler within the party and the sidelining of the Strasser brothers, this quickly fell by the wayside, only the name remaining.
No offense, Betsy, but the Nazi’s were more than socialist in name ... what do you think was the meaning behind "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"? They were statists with a different version of exactly who the state would provide for.
Out of curiosity, did you think that "1984" was written about the Third Reich?
Fascism itself began in Italy, not with Hitler at all, and was, economically at least, basically an extension of corporatism, so that description is accurate.
It’s only accurate insofar as "corporatism" is understood by its actual definition ... which had NOTHING to do with corporations as we understand them.
Please give us some examples of this argument, links and all, because I’ve never heard a single conservative say that all European gentiles are anti-Semitic.
It must cost you a bundle to keep filling up those strawmen.
I gave the best example, above, from the Blog of the Year - Powerline. (Time magazine called it the blog of the year. Yes, Time - read by millions of people. If Powerline is not a conservative, what is? Here is the excerpt:
The situation results from a combination of the virulent and lawless anti-semitism of the growing Arab population in Europe and the indifference, or worse, of Europe’s authorities, who hate Israel and don’t particularly care for Jews.
What infuriates me about the denziens of this site, including you, Steverino, is that you are so quick to label all liberals as suscribing to Daily Kos. If Kos says it, all of us who are not members of the Bush cult are automatically for it. When the same tactic is used on members of the Bush cult, including its more indirect supporters, i.e., when you are all labeled as Powerliners, I get this kind of response, via McQ this time:
A) We’re not Powerline fans as you might have noticed.
I love it. McQ - and most others who post here - call everyone who disagrees with them, or who somehow suggests that Bush should be criticized, a Kossack. But when the same tactic is turned on them, they are quick to disavow the conservative Powerline ramblings. And make no mistake, Powerline represents the conservative point of view.
The conservative message is this - one propogated on this site: Europe hates the Jewish People and embraces radical Islam. Coddles it, actually. Any data to the contrary should be ignored, ridiculed, and the persons who produce such data should have their mental health questioned.
Anyone who says otherwise hates Bush and is a traitor to the United States. He or she suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Austria and Germany are saying,by enforcing these outrageous censorship laws,"We are collectively guilty and genetically programmed to murder and mayhem,therefore we cannot trust ourselves with s much liberty as others". Huh? Or maybe it is just them saving face,and using the David Irvings of the world to do it.Irving is a good writer,a fact buried by adjectives like "discredited".He made people think! He is not calling for a government coup.He is not a gang member or terrorist.He is a man with an opinion,and actually a lot of his research was very,very good,also sadly overlooked by a media that has utterly savaged him in its pack mentality.We need David Irving,whether we like him or not,or agree with him or not.Truth needs dissent to thrive,liberty needs testing to endure,history needs "revision" to be accurate,pretty or not,likable or not.We can always argue with Irving,can’t we? Should hurting peoples feelings be enough reson to throw away basic tenets of free speech? No.A million sob stories and violins are not good enough resons to risk our liberties because we have declared one historical subject off limits for debate,research,reevaluation and investigation as to veracity of specific claims.How utterly scary!Much more than Irving,in his dungeon,locked away so everyone feels safe.
I gave the best example, above, from the Blog of the Year - Powerline. (Time magazine called it the blog of the year. Yes, Time - read by millions of people. If Powerline is not a conservative, what is? Here is the excerpt:
The situation results from a combination of the virulent and lawless anti-semitism of the growing Arab population in Europe and the indifference, or worse, of Europe’s authorities, who hate Israel and don’t particularly care for Jews.
What infuriates me about the denziens of this site, including you, Steverino, is that you are so quick to label all liberals as suscribing to Daily Kos. If Kos says it, all of us who are not members of the Bush cult are automatically for it. When the same tactic is used on members of the Bush cult, including its more indirect supporters, i.e., when you are all labeled as Powerliners, I get this kind of response, via McQ this time:
Not even close, MK!!! Nowhere does Powerline say that ALL non-Jewish Europeans are anti-Semitic. You haven’t come close to proving your assertion. Care to retract it?
Second, MK, I have never said that anyone here subscribes to Daily Kos. Go ahead, do a serach. Find me ONE example where I said anyone is a Kos subscriber.
I’ll wait patiently for your apology. You’ve made two HUGE errors just in this thread, and we all know you won’t come back and correct them.
Out of curiosity, did you think that "1984" was written about the Third Reich?
Not particularly, not any more so than about Stalinism. Totalitarianism of all descriptions was pretty much his bugbear, rather than any specific nation state
There are certain parallels with life under the Third Reich of course: Big Brother as the ever watchful network of gestapo, over-enthusiastic Hitler Youth and neighbourhood spies (though there is some historical debate as to how much this was actually the case); the effective use of propaganda (Goebbels having raised it to an artform); success in society depending on membership and support of the party etc.
There are also plenty of elements that seem purely British though, including a bit of a dig at the Reithian BBC unless I’m mistaken.
My favourite work of Orwell’s remains an essay, the name of which escapes me, bemoaning the use of "not un-" as a prefix rather than just using the word itself. It’s just as well he isn’t around to see the many horrendous abuses of the English language in common usage today, the poor man’s heart couldn’t take it...
Betsie [ed. sorry for misspelling your name before]:
I agree that Orwell lambasted all forms of totalitarianism, but he was specifically an anti-Stalinist and, IIRC, he expressly invited readers to comprehend "1984" as an indictment of Stalinism (and, of course, "Animal Farm" as his description of the Leninist/Stalinist rejection and oppressiono of the revolutionary left).
My favourite work of Orwell’s remains an essay, the name of which escapes me, bemoaning the use of "not un-" as a prefix rather than just using the word itself.
...The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation...
This was certainly one his most interesting essays.
It’s just as well he isn’t around to see the many horrendous abuses of the English language in common usage today, the poor man’s heart couldn’t take it...
Were you thinking of "Politics and the English Language (1946)"?
That’s the one, thanks. For some reason, the part I remembered most from that essay was a footnote:
One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
And I’ve gone completely off-topic now, haven’t I? Sorry folks!
A contradiction in terms. Any state that runs state funded healthcare, state pensions, unemployment and health benefits, and a state-run education system must also coerce massive amounts of taxes from its people, and by definition is drastically limiting the market choices of its subjects. There’s no room left for property rights when most of your property is confiscated before you can even allocate it private hands.
Actually any country that funds its social services to such an extent through taxation, by definition, relies upon a functioning market economy to tax. To have a functioning market economy requires property rights.
The difference between democratic/liberal socialism and communist/national socialism is that under the former there is taxed market that supports socialist type spending, whilst under the latter there is command economy that pays for the socialist ideals. Please do not confuse the two in future.
Did you know the American Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis, was also convicted of Holocaust Denial in France? His crime? Minimizing the Armenian Holocaust. He expressed the opinion that the Armenian Holocaust didn’t qualify as genocide. I guess they feel what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe it’s time to make history a subject for open debate and take it out of the courtroom.
"On Wednesday, the 21st of June, a Paris court condemned Bernard Lewis, professor of Middle Eastern History at Princeton University for having denied the Armenian Genocide in an interview with "Le Monde", one of France’s most renouned dailies. On Friday, 23 June, "Le Monde" reported about the sentence, as it was ordered to do by the court, on page 11."
