Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part I

Imprisoned for writing books and delivering speeches

By Elizabeth Wright

[Reprinted from Issues & Views March 15, 2006]

Is there something in the water in Europe that could turn so many Europeans into such colossal hypocrites and liars? In "When Truth Is No Defense," I described the outrageous policies that are in place, some for decades, in Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium, and in British-based societies like Australia and Canada. These policies enforce laws that forbid scholars, researchers and citizens, in general, from engaging in public dissent on certain data relating to the period in history called the Holocaust. These laws make it clear that European countries in no way acknowledge the right to free speech. (Actually, every European country, even those I failed to cite by name, support such laws to a greater or lesser degree, even if they have not yet passed specific legislation.)

I cited historian David Irving who at the time was awaiting his fate at the hands of an Austrian court. As we've learned in recent days, he has now been convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. That's three years for writing books and delivering speeches.

In recent decades, dozens of Europeans have been given warnings, fined, or jailed for the "crimes" of writing and speaking. In most cases, their names were never even mentioned in the Western press, which, as evidenced by the publication of those anti-Muslim cartoons, we are now supposed to believe is thoroughly dedicated to free speech rights. No editorialist of any note took up the cause of these men or simply reported on their plight. (Not even that braggart Danish publisher, Mr. Free Speech himself.) If anything, members of the media proved ready to reinforce state mandates against free expression.

Ernst Zundel, who now sits in a German jail, as his kangaroo court trial proceeds, suffered earlier persecution at the hands of freedom-loving Canadians. Throughout those years, not one American newspaper or television outlet found it worthwhile to tell his story and to expose Canada for the selectively repressive society it is.

And would we expect France to be far behind? In that country, as I pointed out in my earlier Commentary, a former member of the European Parliament, Bruno Gollnisch, has been charged with "denying crimes against humanity." This means he has disputed, either in print or verbally, certain historical "facts" that now are considered sacred and concretized in stone. Whoever heard of any aspect of history declared closed to further study and research? Who but barbarians would imprison anyone for questioning data compiled by other fallible human beings? Who, other than rabid fundamentalists, would harass and hound a citizen for his opinions on historical events, while sending out signals to the general mob that he no longer has the protection of law and is ripe for burglary, house burning, and other illegal atrocities?

Many of us who, for years, have observed the vehement stifling of free expression in European countries, could hardly keep from laughing in disgust at those government representatives and newspaper editors, who wailed about the "tradition" of free speech rights, in their vain attempts to justify the publication of those crude, anti-Muslim cartoons. Hypocrisy seems not a strong enough word to describe this demonstration of gall. We are talking about a region of the world where academic degrees have been stripped from scholars because they took politically incorrect positions on this Holocaust business, where livelihoods and careers have been lost, because an educator dared to request that his research at least be examined before being dismissed. A "tradition" of free speech rights?

We are expected to look upon the editors of that Danish newspaper, and the copycats who followed, as courageous, even heroic figures. Indeed, according to these liberty professing crusaders, anything less than publication of those 12 cartoons would have constituted a denial of free speech. Yet, editorialists throughout Europe consistently, and cowardly, check their candidness at the door, in deference to the "sensitivities" of their Third World immigrants. In fact, in most countries, criticizing immigration policy and advocating reform is just as taboo as engaging in Holocaust revisionism. Ask former actress Brigitte Bardot about the fines she has been forced to pay in France, over the years, for daring to speak out against the immigrant invasion.

We've always known that Islam does not allow for free speech, but what are Europeans doing fining and locking up their fellow citizens for expressing dissenting views? Statutes against open discussion of history exist because intimidated Europeans succumbed to representatives of powerful interest groups, whose members persisted in getting these biased laws passed. Such groups were also instrumental in banning open criticism of mass immigration. Critics of foreign migrants who have become a liability in many societies are automatically stung with variations of the charge of "inciting racism" -- the same concocted law used against historical revisionists.

The governments of Europe relent to such pressures because, contrary to their claims, they have never enjoyed a "tradition" of free speech. This is just a canard that gets employed whenever it proves expedient, or when irresponsible fomenters of strife are looking for the world's pity after setting off an unnecessary firestorm.

Here in this country, the "Piss Christ" in urine and the Madonna in feces have been cited frequently as parallel cases in discussions about the sacrilegious cartoons. We are urged to look upon the Christ/Madonna exhibitions in the same light as the publication of those cartoons -- both demonstrated acts of bravery in the name of freedom. But would the museum curators, who so boldly exhibited those replicas of sacred Christian figures, have been any less courageous had they decided against mounting such exhibits? Would their failure to do so have signaled a revocation of their free speech rights, or would it simply have been proof of their ability to discriminate between good and bad taste?

In "Secularist Stupidity and Religious Wars," Pat Buchanan calls the action of the Danish editor "a defiant provocation" and picks up on the hypocrisy theme. He chides those European governments that are "wringing their hands" over the ensuing violence brought on by publication of the cartoons, and quotes the German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble, who declared, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what." Mr. Shauble's nose must have grown by hundreds of inches with that monumental lie. In Europe, it is clear that censorship of publishing is a major function of the state -- at least when it comes to the works of those who study and research the Holocaust. Is Shauble making claim to a "tradition" of free speech in, of all places, Germany? Was he laughed off the podium with that remark?

Buchanan correctly asserts, "Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press." Clare Murphy, writing for the BBC, says, "At the heart of the matter is whether the distortion of such a fundamental period of history [the Holocaust] is a greater problem than the suppression of the right to express contrary interpretations." Yes, this is the heart of the matter.

University of Graz sociologist Christian Fleck asks of Irving's views, "Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him?" Charles Richardson, on Australia's Crikey site, observes: "It would be hard to find a clearer case of penalising someone purely on the basis of their opinions" than the Irving case.

It is only the events surrounding publication of the cartoons, which happened to coincide with the court trials of David Irving and Ernst Zundel, that have drawn greater numbers of people into discussing the double standards of censorship and punishment prevalent in Europe. Before the cartoon protests, which began just weeks ago, few Americans were aware of these countries' false claims of freedom. European censorship was a subject relegated only to minor publications and Internet forums. It is now gaining greater exposure in other media outlets.

Here on this website, among many articles on the subject, you can read "Europe censors itself" and "Intolerant laws." And let's not forget England, which rushed to join Europe's self-censorship camp. See "Whose law shall prevail?"

In "Totalitarian Tony," Eric Margolis, writing from London, describes the legendary Hyde Park, where at one time "each Sunday morning, orators, preachers, revolutionaries and crazies would mount soapboxes and say whatever they pleased." Nothing was taboo, he writes. "This was Britain's temple of free speech." Not today, and not in a land where Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared the "glorification of terrorism" a criminal offense. Margolis warns, "History shows such gag laws are soon followed by offences like 'insulting the leadership.' Then, by crimes like 'encouraging anti-state activities,' and, that gulag gate-opener, being 'an enemy of the people.'"

In "Cartoons and Holocaust Deniers" (New York Sun, 2/14/06), Hillel Halkin offers this bit of wisdom:

Nor, even if Holocaust denial laws are in some sense unique, can they be detached from the general atmosphere of political correctness in which they exist -- an atmosphere that is unhealthy for the intelligent discussion of many other things. Although offending groups of people or making prejudiced remarks about them has little to recommend it in itself, the social taboos that now exist against anything that is definable as offensive or prejudiced, or that might possibly be construed as such, are in the long run far more damaging. They lead to self-censorship and fear to speak out on a wide variety of issues, and are far more pernicious than open prohibitions like Holocaust denial laws.

There's hope that the recent spate of press coverage of previously ignored government abuses against free speech will prove more than just a passing fling. For Time magazine (3/6/06) to have acknowledged David Irving's arrest, even if only in a two-inch notice, is a remarkable first. One can only wish that such coverage had begun at least two decades ago.

Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part II

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views