Okay, just for starters – this is a clear example of why you are crazy.
So, British Historian David Irving gets sentenced to 3 years of jail for (let’s see if we can make this sound like…child rape…) ‘Holocaust Denial’ – yes.
This is just plainly confusing.
Let’s go over this bit by bit…
If you deny the existence of God, nobody really seems to mind – they call you an atheist, and really – it’s not the kind of thing that’ll get you on TV, for instance – unless you’re a publicity seeking theocracy-inhabiting pseudo-intellectual who thinks religious issues are something you make a career out of…
If you deny the existence of say, the Sun – well, people will just look at you kind of funny, and maybe, with any luck – you can turn your perception of the situation into a sci-fi novel, or something of the sort. In any case, if you’re nice enough, people will still wish you the best of luck.
If you deny that 2+2=4 – well, you get called stupid – or you end up at MIT discussing nth dimensional mathematical issues. You know the drill.
The common factor – you may have noticed – is that you do NOT PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL for having unpopular/stupid/incorrect ideas. That’s the idea, at least.
Giordano Bruno got burned for the same sort of stuff, but really – it’s not the sort of thing that a modern Europe would be caught dead doing.
Yet, here I am – reading a news article about somebody going to prison – actually serving real, physical, JAIL TIME for having doubts about the use of gas chambers by the Nazis.
Notice the implications.
- There is a SINGLE, definite version of History that must be the ‘Truth’.
- It is ILLEGAL to dispute that ‘Truth’.
- This THOUGHT is punishable in FACT.
No. 1 – is obviously just absolutist and facist.
No. 2 – the veracity of ANY historical event, in fact – an events’ claim to BE historical – is an academic, scientific, issue – NOT a legal one, and it is certain that no ‘Truth’ can be created by sheer force of legislation.
No. 3 – To punish a THOUGHT or an IDEA by actual physical coercion displays an utter contempt towards the very notion of free speech.
Some have argued (oddly enough, many of them are from the camp that thinks there’s nothing inflammatory about the by-now infamous Mohamad cartoons…) that the issue is not one of free academic pursuit – but of social sensitivity, and political correctness….
If I come up and write an article saying all Jews are heartless cocksuckers – then it would certainly be just to accuse me of slander – but if I dispute, for instance – the number of Jews that may or may not have been at a cocktail party 12 years ago – that is NOT slander. My conclusions, correct or incorrect, have no bearing on my moral standing – and are certainly not a crime.
That’s just crazy.