– fordi tiden kræver et MODSPIL

23. Feb 2006

Ytringsfrihed og Holocaust

 
I forbindelse med, at Holocaust-benægteren David Irving nu er idømt tre års fængsel kan det undre, at ytringsfrihedens forkæmper Jyllands-Posten ikke har meldt sig under fanerne med et behjertet forsvar, ikke for manden, men for hans ytringsfrihed.

Sandheden er måske, at Irving er svær at sympatisere med: Hitler-sympatisør, erklæret "moderat fascist", lidenskabelig benægter af Holocaust og afholdt foredragsholder i nynazistiske kredse; så sent som i 2000 blev hans anklage for injurier mod den amerikanske historiker Deborah Lipstadt - der havde kaldt ham "holocaust-benægter" - afvist af en domstol i London.

Lipstadt siger selv om denne sag:
For over three months I had to silently sit in court in London listening to him say the most horrible things about Jews, people of color and survivors. He made fun of those who talked about gas chambers and sneered at survivors' accounts of what they endured. He was full of bluster about how he was going to demolish the myth of the Holocaust.

Quietly and meticulously, relying on the stellar work of a dream team of historians, we showed that every one — not many, not most, but all — of David Irving's claims were complete rot. They were based on lies, distortions and fabrications.

They were, as the prominent historian Richard Evans and the leader of our research team, said, "A tissue of lies." In no way, Evans continued, could this man even be thought of as a historian.
Og Irving har utvivlsomt netop sin egen usandfærdighed og arrogance at takke for, at hans dom blev så hård: Han gjorde under retssagen i Østrig opmærksom på, at han "helt tilbage i 90erne" var blevet klar over, at Holocaust faktisk havde foregået, men den østrigske dommer var udmærket klar over, hvordan han havde ført sig frem under retssagen i 2000.

Udsigten til, at den David Irving, som ifølge ham selv "nu anerkender, at nazisterne systematisk udryddede jøder under Anden Verdenskrig" efter en evt. frifindelse eller betinget dom tilbage i London skulle proklamere, at "vel gjorde de da ej", har næppe moret dommeren synderligt.

Som Lipstadt forklarer
... the judge clearly thought that he was lying and playing with the court when he claimed to have stopped being a Holocaust denier as of the 1990s.

The judge was very familiar with my trial. He knew that Irving had me in court in 2000 and then again in 2001. How could Irving have stopped being a denier in the 1990s if he had me in court in 2000?

The judge knew Irving had all sorts of denial material on his website as of 2005. And he may have been aware that Irving planned to go to New Zealand in 2004 to argue there were no gas chambers.

In short, there may well have been an issue of perjury here and not just free speech. Irving, as I have said earlier, seems to me to think he can say what he wants with no consequences.

During my trial Irving repeatedly claimed a document said X when it said A or vice versa. At one point the judge grew so exasperated with his claims that he said to him: "But it (the document) does not say that Mr. Irving."

It seems to me that judges really hate it when they are toyed with.
Men når det er sagt, så er det, hvor lidt sympati vi end har for løgneren, antisemitten og fascisten David Irving, dybt problematisk at forbyde benægtelse af Holocaust eller andre upopulære synspunkter:

Hvordan kan vi argumentere imod nynazisterne eller Holocaustbenægterne, når de netop ikke kan få lov til at præsentere deres argumenter?

Holocaust er verdenshistoriens måske mest veldokumenterede forbrydelse, og det kræver stor uvidenhed om 2. Verdenskrigs historie - eller en solid, grundfæstet uvilje mod at erkende disse fakta - at benægte det.

Men hvordan kan vi bevise det, hvis modstandernes synspunkter ikke må komme på bordet?

Når det er sagt, bør det dog tilføjes, at netop i Tyskland og Østrig har der historisk set været gode argumenter for at forbyde Holocaustbenægtelsen - nemlig en kolossal uvilje i den store del af efterkrigstidens befolkning, der var medskyldige i nazisternes forbrydelser, mod at erkende eller vedgå, hvad der egentlig foregik under krigen.

I dag, mere end 60 år efter, kunne man spørge sig selv, om ikke også Tyskland og Østrig burde afskaffe disse love og herefter nøjes med at bekæmpe Holocaustbenægtere med ord.

Og så slipper vi også for at høre en David Irving, der først og fremmest er offer for sin egen usandfærdighed og arrogance, omtalt som "martyr for ytringsfriheden" ...

Kommentarer: