Freedom of Speech: The David Irving Case

Last week, right wing Briton historian and writer, David Irving, was sentenced to a three year prison sentence in Austria. His crime? Free speech. The verdict, concluded within a single proceeding, rested on a speech he delivered 17 years ago, wherein he apparently denied the Jewish Holocaust (although he claimed he was never a Holocaust denier, he pled guilty to the charge of doing so). In Hitler’s War, originally published in 1977, and revised several times thereafter, Irving asserted the gas chambers were non existent in the Nazi death camps and that Hitler was unaware of the Final Solution.

Certainly, an analysis to substantiate the accuracy of his work in regards to these views is unnecessary; as Noam Chomsky has repeatedly said, any attempt at denying the Holocaust will result in “losing one’s humanity.” Indeed, Irving is a racist, chauvinistic scoundrel. That aside, the courts are without moral grounding to restrict his right to free speech. As I’ve I stated previously, in regards to the infamous personas of Muhammad, peace be upon him, freedom of speech cannot and must not be applied only to those views that either we, or those in power, agree with. In fact, free speech is a human right, recognized to protect the very views we detest.

Americans are better off than their European counterparts in this arena. In Britain, for example, albeit technically not in Europe, it remains an offense punishable by law, to insult the Church of England. Although many of us live and die by the concept of our freedoms in the United States, and despite the fact that free speech is protected by the Bill of Rights, wide application in defense of the right to free expression is fairly recent. It was Martin Luther King Jr.’s struggle, protesting against state sanctioned racial injustice within the United States and his stance against the war in Vietnam, which allowed free speech to reach its current status as a human right, not to be infringed.

The blaring hypocrisy of the case against Irving is the fact in Austria, it is illegal to publish material defaming Judaism or denying the Holocaust, while on the same token allowing cartoons insulting Muslims under the argument of free speech can freely be published. This is also the case in France, Germany, and a slew of other European countries. What is especially troubling about the Irving case, not discounting his disdainful views, is the idea of the state determining what is, or is not, historical fact.

Few serious historians sympathize with Irving’s historical arguments regarding the Nazi genocide, which is precisely why the state must not be allowed to interfere in or instigate the policing of historical accuracy- indeed, allowing it to do so is tantamount to endorsing the erection of a Ministry of Truth, not unlike what determines fact from fallacy in places like China and North Korea. The point of historical research is not to fall lockstep with the establishment of the ruling party but to enlighten debate, present new interpretations, and challenges, leaving the review process to one’s peers in historiography- a process not unlike what occurs in the sciences.

With freedom comes responsibility, however. Just as the Jylland-Posten of Denmark should not have published the caricatures of the Prophet, insulting an already oppressed minority, their right to do so should also not be infringed, nor should have the writings of David Irving resulted in a prison sentence, no matter how deplorable we may consider them. In the words of John Stuart Mill, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

"Do No Evil"?

Though not overshadowing the ongoing illegal occupation of Iraq or other serious situations, freedom of speech seems to be the big topic in world affairs as of late, specifically the aforementioned controversy raging between the Muslim world and Europe or the ‘hear no evil, speak no evil’ conditions Google and Yahoo have implemented in China insofar as the state deems anyway. Incidentally, where Denmark is concerned, I read an article in the Seattle Times today quoting Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, as saying the Danes are being ‘unfairly depicted’. How pathetic a statement is that? The chickens have decided to come home to roost. On the other issue of Google agreeing to censor information available to the people of China and Yahoo providing the officials private correspondences from its email service, is appalling.

I was first turned onto Google’s email services and search engine, from a colleague who said he preferred them because of the company slogan of “Do No Evil”, a kind of comforting assurance that they could be trusted as an internet company with ethics; unlike a lot of other services, the ads that appear on Google’s search engine are easily distinguishable from search results that come up in order of user preference- not in the order of the highest bidding sponsor. It’s not that searches performed with Google necessarily provided better results than the rest- indeed, I didn’t find them any more reliable than Yahoo or Dogpile. Rather, it was their motto; the honest image of a company that seemed to have arisen from humble beginnings to resounding success managing to do so ethically, that lured me in. Upon listening to a program on CBC, however, their ethics went out the window.

Similar behavior would not be met with such repulsion had it come from Yahoo or MSN. As a matter of fact, it was Yahoo, as cited by court documents, which turned over the details to an email transmission, outlining an internal Communist Party directive, citing concerns over the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, that changed the status of Shi Tao, from journalist to political prisoner, sentenced to 10 years. Just a few days ago, another dissident was imprisoned with Yahoo’s blessing. So much for privacy. Yahoo bent over for China a while back but the reverberation wasn’t noticed nearly as much because the company doesn’t claim to represent some high moral standard. They’re just another transnational corporation, acting within the frame of capitalism, out there to make as much money as possible; it’s common knowledge.

As of this month, google.cn, a Chinese version of the search engine, went online. So what’s the significance? Well, if it’s anything like Yahoo’s Chinese version, it means users will be barred from accessing information that falls outside the state’s interests, such as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the ongoing genocide against Tibet, environmental destruction from factories that are denying millions of residents clean drinking water, resulting in skyrocketing cancer rates, or anything else that questions China’s atrocious human rights policy. Try looking up any of these issues on yahoo.cn.com and see how many pages come up. Worried about your ability to read Kanji? Don’t be; your search will come up empty.

The word is now out: Google is no more ethical than the rest; taken to task, their failure at maintaining their self gratifying slogan nosedives straight into the toilet. It’s one thing to publish something with the intent to ‘unfairly depict’ one fifth of the world’s population, crossing the line of “can we print it?” and “should we print it?” and coming up with the wrong choice. It's an entirely different ballgame stating your company’s goal “is to provide a much higher level of service to all those who seek information, whether they're at a desk in Boston, driving through Bonn, or strolling in Bangkok,” while at the same time strangling the democratic principal of freedom to 1.3 billion people living under the thumb of Beijing.

Balancing Free Speech & Islamic Ethics: An Opinion

The current uproar raging across the Middle East in response to numerous animated drawings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is nearly as shocking as the pictures themselves. Islamic tradition prohibits any illustrations or statues from depicting prophets of God, be they positive or negative. In fact, as far as the three monotheistic, prophetic religions are concerned, such depictions are unique to Christianity and its Roman influence. Jesus, himself, peace be upon him, would have never condoned his image being constructed, especially seeing as it has been used to promote white supremacy, though his skin is described as resembling burnt brass and his hair is likened to wool in the Book of Revelations (1:14-15). While in University, I befriended an Orthodox Jewish woman from Israel who was greatly disturbed at the sight of so many Jesus statues dominating the campus landscape. Be that as it may, the right to free speech allows it, as does freedom of religion, thanks be to God.

One basic note to consider while attempting to make sense of the Muslim backlash against the European countries where the cartoons were published is the notion of freedom, so often taken for granted by those of living in the west. These places have no concept of freedom of speech nor press. When confronted with such material, people who lack the freedom of information are easily roused (certainly, the level of desensitization to vile acts, seen in the west, is nothing to be proud of, however). Although the Editor-in-Chief of Jyllands-Posten, the first to publish the cartoons, has long since apologized, his doing so falls significantly short of criminal charges and UN sanctions called for by the riotous crowds responsible for torching embassies and killing innocent bystanders- heinous actions, forbidden by Islamic teaching. What these people fail to understand is that the concept of free speech is simply that: free. There is no law, either Danish or under the UN that prohibits free speech, nor should there be. Unlike many examples conjured up post 911, this case does, indeed, illustrate a clash of civilizations.

As a westerner, and a Muslim, I might add, who includes personal freedom among the highest of principles, it is my belief that free speech must never be impeded. Yes, illustrations of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, suggesting that he was a terrorist, are repulsive; yes, it is irresponsible for any newspaper to publish anti-Islamic depictions of this nature considering the current climate of discrimination directed against Muslims, yet, to react with violence in the name of defending Islam is equally offensive to the point of becoming antithetical. It begs the question: would Muhammad himself be more outraged by the defamation of his character portrayed in a newspaper, or images of Muslims committing senseless acts of violence in his honor?

Building on this scenario is the desperate need for self-evaluation within the international Muslim community. Should we not be more outraged by the lack of equality that exists within so-called Islamic states or the corruption which maintains the status quo leadership in places like Saudi Arabia and Sudan? Should we not be more ashamed that the fifth pillar of our faith, Zakat, or charity, has fallen, resulting in the severe poverty ravaging our sisters and brothers throughout Asia and Africa, for is it not a fact that the majority of charitable funding originates from those who can hardly feed their own families? Is it not more repulsive to see Muslims carrying out atrocities in Bali or a tribal council in Pakistan sentencing Mukhtar Mai, a Muslim sister, to gang rape for violations of classism committed by her brother and then furthering the insult by acquitting the men who violated her in a state court? Would it not make more sense to march against the embassies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps no other occurrence so easily demonstrates the urgent need for reform within the Islamic community than the ones we've seen in the news this week. Those imams who have called for calm and put themselves in harm's way should be commended. The fact, however, that people are forbidden many personal freedoms in the Muslim world illustrates what can happen when the open exchange of ideas is prohibited albeit by many of these same imams. Several of those who have involved themselves in the violent protests have been forbidden to even view the drawings in question. On man in Jordan was actually arrested for re-publishing them; he didn't condone them, he only wanted people to see what they were so outraged against. As Muslims, we are instructed by the Qur'an to treat all of God's Prophets with the same degree of honor (2:285), yet I don't recall Muslims voicing outrage when other prophets have been degraded. When the Brooklyn Art Museum exhibited offensive caricatures of Jesus and his mother, the Holy Virgin Mary, may peace be with them, Muslims should have been equally as disgusted.


The point is, we as an Ummah have much more serious problems plaguing us. I support protesting against inflammatory depictions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, but not by indulging in violence. Boycott goods produced in Norway and Denmark, as one sister who was interviewed by the BBC is doing; call for the end of anti-Muslim bigotry and march in front of embassies- but above all fight for personal freedoms and democratic reform within our own communities. Fight for an end to poverty and inequity. Fight against those carrying out atrocities under the banner of Islam. In short, let's get our house in order before we allow it to collapse above us.