2004-12-02, 14:27
#1
>The laws that criminalize Holocaust and World War II history have
>the net effect of providing legal cover for the myths that are
>exploited by people of all political persuasions and ideologies
>during times of war and national crisis. By suppressing research
>that questions these myths, we deprive ourselves of the information
>we need in order to ask our leaders, and ourselves, the kinds of
>hard questions that are particularly relevant right now:
>
>Can there be such a thing as a "good" war? Can a "preemptive" war
>ever be necessary? If it was right to declare war against one brutal
>dictator (Hitler) before he committed the crimes that would later be
>used as the very reason for that war, is it right to preemptively
>strike other brutal dictators before they become greater menaces?
>
>Can a war, and can a postwar occupation, be conducted successfully
>without resorting to brutality? Is brutality ever warranted? If it
>was justifiable to torture captured Nazis after the war in order to
>obtain evidence of Nazi war crimes, is it okay to use torture to
>gain information from captured Al Qaeda fighters? If it was
>acceptable to try Nazis in front of military tribunals in which they
>had limited rights of defense, and in which false evidence was used
>to convict, is it okay to do the same to Muslim extremists - who
>have, after all, murdered more U.S. civilians than the Nazis did?
>
>Is it ever permissible for our government to use deception in order
>popularize a war? If it turns out that some of the war crimes
>accusations made against the Nazis were unfounded, should we correct
>the historical record? Or is it better to keep quiet, lest we risk
>making the Nazis appear less evil to future generations? And if it's
>okay to continue using falsehoods against the Nazis, is it okay to
>use falsehoods against Al Qaeda, or Saddam Hussein?
>
>Those who advocate an open and unrestrained debate over our
>government's case for going to war in Iraq say that allowing such a
>debate strengthens our democracy. If that's true, then why shouldn't
>we allow an equally open and unrestrained debate over our
>government's case for going to war against Germany and Japan?
>
>Finally, if it's okay to suppress "revisionist" Holocaust views
>because some people claim that they are insensitive to Holocaust
>survivors, should it be okay to suppress views critical of the war
>on terrorism, because they're insensitive to the victims of
>terrorism and their families?
>
>These questions may not have easy "yes" or "no" answers, but it is
>simply wrong to criminalize and suppress the historical research
>that prompts us to face these necessary questions. We don't have to
>agree with dissident World War II and Holocaust researchers in order
>to recognize the value and relevance of the questions their research
>raises. When we deprive them of the ability do their work, we are
>depriving ourselves of something valuable, as well.
>
>And we should not just be asking ourselves these "hard questions."
>Laws that criminalize Holocaust and World War II history have turned
>many of our European "allies" into hypocrites.
>
>In Germany, it is legal for Germans and foreign nationals to belong
>to Al Qaeda and publicly talk about murdering Americans and Jews,
>but German citizens and foreign nationals who violate the German
>laws that criminalize Holocaust and World War II history are
>immediately charged and prosecuted.44
>
>In France, books claiming that 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated by the
>U.S. and Israel have become bestsellers carried by almost every
>major French bookstore.45 At the same time, however, authors who
>write critically about World War II or Holocaust history are thrown
>in prison or fined (France has Europe's most severe anti-revisionist
>law, prohibiting people from questioning the version of World War II
>history that was laid out immediately after the war by the Allies at
>the Nuremberg Trial in 1946).
>
>The French government has no problem with wild conspiracy theories
>about 9/11, or the American war on terrorism, but it won't allow its
>own citizens to critically examine the history of France's last war
>- a war through which, it should be noted, France acquired quite a
>lot of territory. The French have condemned Israel for, among other
>things, acquiring territory through war, but there are no laws in
>Israel prohibiting the critical examination of Israel's past wars.46
>Why won't the French government allow its citizens the same right?
>
>In 2002, when the U.S. decided to conduct tighter screening
>procedures for foreign visitors from countries that sponsor
>terrorism, the Canadian government reacted in horror to this "human
>rights violation," even going so far as instructing its residents of
>Middle Eastern descent not to visit the U.S. Yet the Canadian
>government supplies its own customs agency with a veritable laundry
>list of World War II and Holocaust history books that are illegal in
>Canada. These books cannot be imported into Canada or possessed by
>Canadians. The Canadian government thinks that the U.S. should not
>screen visitors from "high risk" nations who seek to enter our
>country, yet the Canadians rigorously screen every book that is
>brought into their country.47
>
>Why is the Canadian government afraid to allow its citizens to read
>dissident views of World War II and the Holocaust? The
>criminalization of Holocaust and World War II history is taken to
>such extremes in Canada that, in 1997, a well-known columnist for
>one of Vancouver's largest newspapers was prosecuted for writing a
>negative review of the movie Schindler's List!48 According to the
>logic of the Canadian government, it is a "human rights violation"
>for the U.S. to require foreign visitors from high-risk nations
>traveling on guest visas to report changes of address during their
>stay, but it's not a human rights violation to prosecute a man for
>writing a movie review!
>the net effect of providing legal cover for the myths that are
>exploited by people of all political persuasions and ideologies
>during times of war and national crisis. By suppressing research
>that questions these myths, we deprive ourselves of the information
>we need in order to ask our leaders, and ourselves, the kinds of
>hard questions that are particularly relevant right now:
>
>Can there be such a thing as a "good" war? Can a "preemptive" war
>ever be necessary? If it was right to declare war against one brutal
>dictator (Hitler) before he committed the crimes that would later be
>used as the very reason for that war, is it right to preemptively
>strike other brutal dictators before they become greater menaces?
>
>Can a war, and can a postwar occupation, be conducted successfully
>without resorting to brutality? Is brutality ever warranted? If it
>was justifiable to torture captured Nazis after the war in order to
>obtain evidence of Nazi war crimes, is it okay to use torture to
>gain information from captured Al Qaeda fighters? If it was
>acceptable to try Nazis in front of military tribunals in which they
>had limited rights of defense, and in which false evidence was used
>to convict, is it okay to do the same to Muslim extremists - who
>have, after all, murdered more U.S. civilians than the Nazis did?
>
>Is it ever permissible for our government to use deception in order
>popularize a war? If it turns out that some of the war crimes
>accusations made against the Nazis were unfounded, should we correct
>the historical record? Or is it better to keep quiet, lest we risk
>making the Nazis appear less evil to future generations? And if it's
>okay to continue using falsehoods against the Nazis, is it okay to
>use falsehoods against Al Qaeda, or Saddam Hussein?
>
>Those who advocate an open and unrestrained debate over our
>government's case for going to war in Iraq say that allowing such a
>debate strengthens our democracy. If that's true, then why shouldn't
>we allow an equally open and unrestrained debate over our
>government's case for going to war against Germany and Japan?
>
>Finally, if it's okay to suppress "revisionist" Holocaust views
>because some people claim that they are insensitive to Holocaust
>survivors, should it be okay to suppress views critical of the war
>on terrorism, because they're insensitive to the victims of
>terrorism and their families?
>
>These questions may not have easy "yes" or "no" answers, but it is
>simply wrong to criminalize and suppress the historical research
>that prompts us to face these necessary questions. We don't have to
>agree with dissident World War II and Holocaust researchers in order
>to recognize the value and relevance of the questions their research
>raises. When we deprive them of the ability do their work, we are
>depriving ourselves of something valuable, as well.
>
>And we should not just be asking ourselves these "hard questions."
>Laws that criminalize Holocaust and World War II history have turned
>many of our European "allies" into hypocrites.
>
>In Germany, it is legal for Germans and foreign nationals to belong
>to Al Qaeda and publicly talk about murdering Americans and Jews,
>but German citizens and foreign nationals who violate the German
>laws that criminalize Holocaust and World War II history are
>immediately charged and prosecuted.44
>
>In France, books claiming that 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated by the
>U.S. and Israel have become bestsellers carried by almost every
>major French bookstore.45 At the same time, however, authors who
>write critically about World War II or Holocaust history are thrown
>in prison or fined (France has Europe's most severe anti-revisionist
>law, prohibiting people from questioning the version of World War II
>history that was laid out immediately after the war by the Allies at
>the Nuremberg Trial in 1946).
>
>The French government has no problem with wild conspiracy theories
>about 9/11, or the American war on terrorism, but it won't allow its
>own citizens to critically examine the history of France's last war
>- a war through which, it should be noted, France acquired quite a
>lot of territory. The French have condemned Israel for, among other
>things, acquiring territory through war, but there are no laws in
>Israel prohibiting the critical examination of Israel's past wars.46
>Why won't the French government allow its citizens the same right?
>
>In 2002, when the U.S. decided to conduct tighter screening
>procedures for foreign visitors from countries that sponsor
>terrorism, the Canadian government reacted in horror to this "human
>rights violation," even going so far as instructing its residents of
>Middle Eastern descent not to visit the U.S. Yet the Canadian
>government supplies its own customs agency with a veritable laundry
>list of World War II and Holocaust history books that are illegal in
>Canada. These books cannot be imported into Canada or possessed by
>Canadians. The Canadian government thinks that the U.S. should not
>screen visitors from "high risk" nations who seek to enter our
>country, yet the Canadians rigorously screen every book that is
>brought into their country.47
>
>Why is the Canadian government afraid to allow its citizens to read
>dissident views of World War II and the Holocaust? The
>criminalization of Holocaust and World War II history is taken to
>such extremes in Canada that, in 1997, a well-known columnist for
>one of Vancouver's largest newspapers was prosecuted for writing a
>negative review of the movie Schindler's List!48 According to the
>logic of the Canadian government, it is a "human rights violation"
>for the U.S. to require foreign visitors from high-risk nations
>traveling on guest visas to report changes of address during their
>stay, but it's not a human rights violation to prosecute a man for
>writing a movie review!
