It must be the internet: we’ve mentioned the Nazis!

An excellent post from Jonny Wright has encouraged me to break cover on the suggestion that the EU should ban holocaust denial throughout the Union’s 27 members. I probably don’t need to revise the background. Suffice to say that there are two questions: should one ban holocaust denial? And is it right that this should be legislated upon at an EU level?

I have written before on the subject of banning holocaust denial. There is something truly grotesque about the attempt by some pseudo-historians and anti-Semites to rub the extermination of millions out of the pages of history. If any false-theory or misguided belief deserves to be banned it is this.

But it doesn’t. No matter how distasteful holocaust denial may seem, it is as nothing compared to the dangers of legislating against people's freedom of speech. It is trite beyond belief to equate one’s opponents with the Nazis, but when one begins to impinge upon the fundamental freedoms upon which a liberal society is built, one takes a first step down a slippery and dangerous path. Freedom must also include the freedom to be wrong, and liberty requires tolerance of those whose views challenge or even disgust us.

Why, anyway, are we so afraid of this tiny minority of twisted fools, that we should seek to muzzle them with the full force of the state? If we are so sure of our truths, can we not defend them with evidence and reason, rather than legislating to protect them? Let the holocaust deniers shout from the rooftops; they just draw attention to an evil that might otherwise fade into the distance.

As for European-wide legislation, it is neither necessary nor warranted. There is no compelling reason why EU member-states need to harmonise their laws on freedom of expression (though if they happened to all adopt a policy of tolerance towards opinions with which they did not disagree, I would rejoice!). The EU remains – at least for now – an single economic market, onto which has been grafted a few additional competences such as justice and foreign affairs co-operation. We remain 27 nation-states, each perfectly capable of deciding for itself what laws need apply in its jurisdiction.

The EU recognises this: it has a principle called “subsidiarity” that says that decisions should be taken at the level nearest the citizen (a principle that might usefully be applied within nation-states!). Sadly, the EU has always treated the subsidiarity clause with contempt. Like all bureaucracies, the Eurocracy seeks constantly to expand its powers. To our shame, Liberal Democrat euro-parliamentarians are all too ready to assist that creeping arrogation of power.

Thus this proposed law is the worst of both worlds, and highlights the fact that the EU is not in practice a liberal institution. The EU exists to further the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour and so foster greater harmony and co-operation between nations. In the process it has expanded its responsibilities far beyond what is necessary to achieve these goals, taking decision-making – and thus power – ever further away from the citizen.

As liberals we can be proud of our support for the Union, but that support must not blind us to its faults. We must not become partisans for the Union against our principles or the wishes of our countrymen. If we are going to fight to keep Britain in the Union, we must fight twice as hard to keep the Union liberal. If we fail in that, we will fail the British people twice over: we will saddle them with an illiberal institution; and when eventually it becomes to much to bear, we will share the blame for Britain’s withdrawal.

Shut it, Ana! (You're only free if you're not wrong)

The greatest threats to freedom of speech do not come in edicts aimed at preventing public protests against our government or righteous expressions of belief.

This may seem surprising, at a time when our Government has banned public protests near parliament and frequently threatens laws that might criminalize criticism of religious beliefs or practices that are affronts to liberty. Yet the very fact that these are blatant abuses of power, flagrant violations of ancient rights, make them difficult and controversial. The majority of the public probably opposes bans on public protests – die-hard supporters of the Iraq War would undoubtedly argue that the freedom of a million protesters to march up Whitehall demanding that the war not be fought was the very freedom that they wanted to spread to Iraq.

The real threats to freedom of speech come not from bans of righteous and sympathetic causes such as public protest, investigative journalism or cultural debate. Rather, freedom of expression is undermined at its weakest point: the unsympathetic and quite controversial areas where people of conscience genuinely worry about threats to society and the suffering of individuals.

I have discussed before the importance of allowing holocaust deniers to argue their case even though it insults the victims of Nazism and might perhaps fuel neo-fascism. Another example of the trend is in the news today: a call for the banning of so called “Ana/Mia” websites aimed at sufferers of Anorexia and Bulimia.

There are many websites aimed at sufferers of Anorexia and Bulimia, from the informative through support sites through to group networks. It is these last that are causing concern. Sites using phrases like “I love you to the bones” are viewed by some as glorifying the disease; others enable sufferers to swap hints and tips. Many view these as encouraging the syndrome and thus inciting self-harm. The typical reaction is – as always – to ban them.

There are many problems involved here. The first is a straight-forward legal one; as long as no crime is being broken, the Government probably has no legal right to ban them. Some are being censored already, probably by internet service providers and search engines that have been leant on by pressure groups opposed to the sites (see, for example, the Pro Ana Mia Website & Forum).

But a far greater problem is the consequences of such a ban. If we create a society whereby whatever we consider to be abhorrent and disgusting we ban, we are in effect abrogating other people freedom to be different. If we ban even the discussion of such issues, we create a moralistic society that seeks to “look into men’s souls” and dictate to them what they may think, feel or say.

The danger here comes from the very fact that most of us probably sympathise with the emotions lying behind the calls for censorship. I am appalled that people might glorify self-harm, or terrorism or paedophilia or any number of other crimes. But there is a fundamental difference between discussing a subject – even approving of it – and practicing it, or inciting others to do so. Not being a lawyer I can only guess that incitement to cause self-harm is as much a crime as incitement to commit violence upon others. But swapping hints and tips or providing non-condemnatory support for sufferers is a far cry from encouraging others into the condition: teaching somebody to hotwire a car is not necessarily an incitement to steal one, even if most of us cannot imagine what use such a skill could be except for criminal purposes. Similarly, the Samaritans are not encouraging suicide by providing confidential help and support to those who feel suicidal.

There are plenty of other reasons why a ban would be both unwise and unenforceable. It would be difficult to draw the line between support and incitement, or between serious debate and malicious encouragement. It may be (indeed probably is) the case that those who glorify and encourage sufferers are themselves sufferers, so that we would be making double-victims of those who are already sick. Furthermore, we would drive them underground – the exchange of information would not be eliminated, but it would become clandestine, just as the exchange of child pornography is facilitated by the internet even though it is illegal (which argument should not be taken to suggest that the latter should therefore not be banned – the market clearly fuels the abuse of children which is in itself a crime). Moreover, as the internet is a space without borders (this being an innate part of its nature) a UK ban would merely see these sites migrate abroad. A ban would not work.

But the fact that a ban would not be effective is beside the point. We should not ban these sites because this would be the thin end of the wedge. What would follow would be an ever-more prescriptive approach to information, enforced by an ever-more powerful state censor. Where today we would ban sites for anorexics and drug users, tomorrow we would ban sites for fox hunters, and after them for smokers (as guilty of self-harm as any anorexic). Richard Dawkins would ban religions and others would ban gambling. We would be creating the paternalist-progressive state where individuals are protected from themselves and their own bad choices. Before it was over liberty would be curtailed as individuals were only able to discuss that which society viewed as wholesome. And after that we would have to do what was wholesome.

This is not just an absurd fantasy. German families in the 1930s were cajoled to go on country walks together in matching beige uniforms; homosexuality was illegal in Britain until 1967. This is not the society we want. What little benefit there is to sufferers of tragic illnesses will be as nothing compared to the loss of freedom which will follow. We must learn to allow people to practice – and to share – their freedom, even if they are free to be wrong.

Let down by the BBC (again!)

I am bitterly disappointed to discover that the BBC do not archive news programmes and that as such old URLs now take viewers to a new item.

On a few occasions I have included clips from the BBC in my postings, most notably when I was urging readers to listen to Roman Halter, an Auschwitz survivor, describe how wonderful he found Britain after the war and how much he cherished our strong tradition of liberty. His eloquent eulogising of freedom of speech was all the more poignant as he was arguing that the Holocaust-denier David Irving should be free to write and say that Mr. Halter and his deceased relatives were figments of a Zionist plot.

On another occasion I used clips to support my criticism of the confusion between “anti-social behaviour” and actual crime.

Sadly these and other clips are no longer available, and the links now take one to the latest version of that news programme (be it One O’clock or Ten O’clock News) as broadcast on the day one clicks the URL, not back to the original programme that generated the URL when I wrote the article.

This is a shame. Good internet practice, especially in this most ephemeral of media, urges content providers to maintain good archives, and websites not to change URLs, for this very reason. I cannot believe that if YouTube can store thousands of new videos a day, the BBC cannot store its (surely much-more-popular) news items.

My apologies to readers who have been left confused and frustrated.

David Irving’s freedom (and Roman Halter’s love of liberty)

After 13 months in prison, the holocaust denier David Irving is back in the UK, painting himself as the victim of an atrocity. The sad thing is that in this case he is telling the truth.

Atrocities are, of course, relative. 11 million people died in the Holocaust (or 14 million, or 20 million, or seven, depending on whom you ask) and by comparison 13 months in prison is small beer.

But there remains a qualitative link between banning a man’s freedom of speech (whether or not you think he is crazy or evil) and other, more savage, forms of oppression. The Nazis thought they were making the world a better place – for thoroughbred Aryans, at any rate. Undoubtedly a similar confidence filled those who criminalized Holocaust denial in Austria, Germany, France and elsewhere.

I can think of few justifications for these laws, most of them weak. That deniers are able to ferment fascism is unlikely; the most effective recruiting ground for the far right these days is anti-Muslim rhetoric, and it would take a truly masterful storyteller to tie Al Qaeda in with the Zionist Conspiracy. That it denigrates the memory of the dead or exacerbates the suffering of the living may be true, but this is no reason to ban free speech; we must all tolerate views that we dislike. As for the suggestion that these lies might confuse poor innocent minds that do not know better, this is both condescending and prevents people learning the most vital lesson of history, which is how to be discerning.

By comparison, I can think of a couple of very solid reasons for permitting free speech. The first is that the best way of exposing lies and mistakes is through refutation; by imprisoning those with whom we disagree we pass up an opportunity both to expose them and to sharpen our own arguments. We also give them a veneer of martyrdom. The second reason is that it makes a mockery of our exhortation to others to respect freedom of speech – either by allowing their own citizens to speak or at least not to fume when ours do so.

There are echoes here of the furore over the recent conference in Iran questioning the holocaust. We should have treated this with contempt, but by and large ignored it. It was a political stunt and by rising to the bait we played into the hands of Iranian hardliners. In the process we look like hypocrites. Earlier this year liberals across Europe were calling for tolerance of freedom of expression after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, and great amounts of angst ensued when Muslims across the world, including in Iran and the UK, were seen to argue that blasphemy was a sin punishable by death and that Western liberalism was mistaken, a contradiction of the word of God, or still worse a cynical excuse to justify attacks on their religion. We must prove at least this last concern wrong by applying freedom of speech impartially. If we defend one group’s right to offend Muslims we cannot then condemn another group for offending Jews.

Having said all this, my argument remains that of a remote observer. I am neither a Jew nor a Nazi nor a Muslim nor a cartoonist. I am passionate about freedom of speech but it is not my people’s suffering that is being denied by Mr. Irving. So if I have not convinced you, or if you are in the mood to be both moved and uplifted by somebody who did suffer first-hand, watch last night’s BBC 10 O’clock News and listen to Roman Halter. You will need to scroll 10 minutes and 40 seconds into the programme to hear this Jewish immigrant, who survived the concentration camps but saw his whole extended family wiped out, explain why Mr. Irving should be allowed to speak and publish, even if what he is saying is repulsive. In so doing, he speaks so lyrically of the freedom of expression that we all tend to take for granted that it is truly humbling.