Justus For All

I have been struggling today to come up with a post on the David Irving trial.

The Belmont Club expresses my feelings quite perfectly.

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.

Using government power to define and protect truth strikes me as a very blunt and unsuitable tool for the job. There are more effective ways to prevent this sort of evil, and they don’t spawn the risk of re-creating the very style of evil they are designed to prevent.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred have more thoughts on this, I agree as to the dangers of Holocaust denial, and why it is so attractive to certain parties, but disagree with the ‘Fire in a crowded theater’ analogy and, obviosly, on the use of Government power to validate truth.