» posted on 11:57am - March 12 2006 | posted by Lev
The trial of the British historian David Irving has unleashed a debate in Austria about the country's Holocaust denial law, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.
The law was enacted after World War II, and was meant to prevent any further Nazi activities.
Austria had been annexed to Nazi Germany in 1938, and was deeply involved in the crimes of the Third Reich.
A few Austrians, such as Lothar Hobelt, an associate professor of history at the University of Vienna, believe it should never have been set up at all.
"This is a silly law by silly people for silly people," he said.
"In fact, having a law that says you mustn't question a particular historical instance, if anything, creates doubt about it, because if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument."
But many other Austrians believe that not having the law would lay them open to the charge that they were not confronting their country Nazi past.
For many years, Austrians saw themselves as victims not perpetrators. The legacy of this reluctance to admit responsibility still casts a shadow here.
Professor Theo Ohlinger, an expert in constitutional law at Vienna University, says the law is a sensitive issue.
"It is so clear that the Holocaust existed that everybody who denies it is considered a fool. But abolishing this law could signal that Austria may not be really active in fighting against any National Socialist activities, and that is a problem."
Memorial
Before World War II, 200,000 Jews lived in Vienna. Nowadays, the community is only a few thousand strong.
Vienna's chief Rabbi Chaim Eisenberg says denying the Holocaust is dangerous.
"All this is very ugly, despicable," he says.
"I am not sure if people should go to jail, but there should be some measure to make sure that this does not happen."
In Vienna's cobbled Judenplatz stands the stone memorial to the 65,000 Austrian Jews who died in the Holocaust.
These days, few Austrians dispute the genocide, and historian Tina Walzer says the debate has moved on.
"The discussion is on a completely different level," she says.
"Today we are talking about compensation payments, we are talking about restitution. This is much more concrete than just talking about 'did the Holocaust happen or did it not?'"
The fact that people are daring to debate the Holocaust denial law shows that Austrians are less afraid to confront the past.
But sensitivities still run very high, and as long as that is the case, the law will remain in force.
SOURCE: BBC
----------
My two cents: I have never denied or even thought the holocaust didn't occur, however I see laws like this as a threat to freedom, free speech and as a threat to accurately recording history. I know that probably sounds funny, but here's why I think laws like this pose with how we record history. When we allow governments to have the power to force us to acknowledge history as they want us to remember it, it paves to way to forcing us to buy into inaccurate perceptions of reality. While I do believe the events of the holocaust happened, I don't think forcing people to believe them should be justified. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want. Where would it end if governments begin to make laws telling us how history happened and that if you deny it you are a criminal. That would create quite a scary world when tyrants in power begin to use this sort of method to control history and the minds of the masses. I think the holocaust happened, was a horrible event (although there have been many others of equal or even greater horror in our modern history which are ignored) but I don't think it should be considered a form of anti-semitism to question the validity of these events.
--- "Irving case prompts Austria...law" has been viewed 
times ---
untitled
posted by:
Flavian Greece · date:
2:16am - March 13 2006Nice post
Lev, personaly I'm not a fan of David Irving but that's not the issue, he should have the right to speak what he wishes, no one hs to listen.
I have a personal stance on these laws, my friend Siegfried Verbeke was arrested under them in Belgium and extradited to Germany, he comited no crime, he is not a racist bigot, he just questioned History and published a magazine years ago focusing on revisionism (not just Holocaust denial).
Free speech is too precious to have laws mentioning what we should and should not question.
VERITAS ODIUM PARIT!
Copyleft 2010