Throughout our lives, we often get to confront a situations when the change in ground rules and regulations, concerning a particular group of people or society in general, prompts us to refer to such a change as unethical. At the same time, the very fact that such changes do take place, every once in a while, indicate their objective essence, which in its turn implies that some of them may be ethical, after all, simply because the cause that results in these changes coming into being, corresponds to the principle of impartiality, rationality and publicity.
In their book “Research Ethics: a Reader”, Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern provide us with an insight on what should account for our reasoning as to which change in ground rules can be referred to as ethical or unethical: “Not everyone agrees on which violations satisfy the three conditions of impartiality, rationality, and publicity, but it is a part of our moral system that no violation is justified unless it satisfies all three of these conditions” (Elliot & Stern, 1997, p. 29). While keeping this in mind, we will analyze the introduction of “holocaust denial” criminal charges into the penal code of many Western countries that simultaneously take pride in the fact that their democratic form of governing is being firmly based onto the concept of freedom of speech.
In 2006, a critically acclaimed British historian David Irving was being sentenced to 5 years in Austrian jail, simply because he happened to suggest that Jews were not only the people who suffered during the course of WW2 and that the extent of their suffering is being grossly exaggerated by Jewish controlled Medias. In his article “Freedom of Hate Speech”, Jeff Jacoby states: “Funny people, the Austrians. If you’re Kurt Waldheim – a former Nazi military officer linked to a genocidal massacre during World War II – they elect you president. But if you’re David Irving – a British author who claimed that there never was a Nazi genocide during World War II – they throw you in the slammer” (Jacoby 2006). It is important to understand that this incident sheds light onto the fact that in the West, an impartial, rational and public concept of freedom of speech is being gradually deprived of its essential subtleties.
Ever since their childhood years, citizens in such countries as Canada, Britain, France and Germany are being taught to believe that they can utilize their constitutional right of freedom of speech in just about any way they want – yet, as soon as they begin publically referring to Jews other then the “holy cows”, that are being beyond any criticism whatsoever, they automatically risk the chance of criminal persecution. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the introduction of various “hate speech” and “holocaust denial” legislations into the very core of Western jurisprudence represents a classical example of change in ground rules and regulations on a truly global scale. Can we refer to this change as ethical? After all, Jews used to be getting killed by Nazis en masse and many of them do get emotionally hurt when people like David Irving come up with “holocaust denial” statements.
The answer to this is most definitely not. And the reasons that allowed us to come to this conclusion are as follows:
- “Holocaust denial” criminal charge, as the violation of ground rules of freedom of speech, is not impartial. For example, it is a fact that American and Canadian Natives were subjected to nothing short of genocide in 19th century; however, one can freely deny this fact publically, without experiencing the fear of criminal persecution. Obviously, the same does not apply to those who deny Jewish Holocaust. And, there is absolutely no rational reason for this, unless we believe that Jews are being truly “chosen people”.
- “Holocaust denial” criminal charge, as the violation of ground rules of freedom of speech, is not rational. We are being told that the introduction of “holocaust denial” legislations is meant to increase the levels of tolerance in Western societies. However, the concept of tolerance organically derives out of the concept of democracy. In its turn, the concept of democracy is being fundamentally based onto the principle of freedom of speech. In the same article from which we have already quoted, Jacoby states: “Punishing anyone who ”denies, grossly trivializes, approves, or seeks to justify” the Holocaust or other Nazi crimes may seem a small price to pay to keep would-be totalitarians and hate-mongers at bay. But a government that can make the expression of Holocaust denial a crime today can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow” (Jacoby, 2006). The freedom of speech is exactly about allowing people to express the opinions we might hate, rather then solely the ones that we like.
- “Holocaust denial” criminal charge, as the violation of ground rules of freedom of speech, is not public. As for today, there is absolutely no rational way of telling whether the suspected “holocaust revisionist” is being driven by his malicious desire to defame Jews or simply by his intention to examine the history in truly objective and unemotional manner. This is exactly the reason why the hawks of political correctness in Western countries try their best to keep the true significance of introduction of “holocaust denial” legislations away from the public, simply because if citizens happened to closely examine these legislations, they would realize that they no longer live in free society.
Thus, the introduction of “holocaust denial” and “hate speech” by-laws, as the blatant violation of “rules of the game” concerning the concept of free speech, is grossly unethical, because of its simultaneously selective, irrational, and secretive subtleties.
Bibliography
Elliott, D. & Stern, J. (1997). Research Ethics: a Reader. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Jacoby, J. (2006). Freedom of Hate Speech. The Boston Globe.