Richard Kloian, Founder of Armenian Genocide Resource Center, Passes Away

With examples from Richard Kloian's compilation of original New York Times reports of the ongoing Armenian Genocide

SAN FRANCISCO—Richard Kloian, who established and directed the Armenian Genocide Resource Center, was laid to rest today in the presence of family and friends, at Rolling Hills Memorial Park in El Sobrante, California.

Richard was 73. He passed away on May 1 after a massive stroke. At the funeral services, Roxanne Makasdjian, the chairperson of the Bay Area Armenian National Committee (ANC), spoke about Richard Kloian’s major contribution to the work of organizations pursuing recognition of the Armenian Genocide, to the field of genocide studies, and to the general public’s understanding of the Armenian Genocide.

Raffi Momjian, the director of the Genocide Education Project, for which Kloian acted as advisor, read a few of the many comments sent by scholars expressing their remembrances about Richard. Israel Charny, the executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, wrote, “I consider him a GIANT on behalf of Armenian Genocide recognition and memory. His devotion to his work in enabling education and memory about the Armenian Genocide was immense.”

Dennis Papazian, professor emeritus and founding director of the Armenian Research Center at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, wrote, “He was a man dedicated to the truth and willing to gather the evidence for all to see. He was a true gentleman, and hated no one. His only desire was to educate and enlighten. He believed that enlightened people would do the right thing. He had a positive outlook. He is irreplaceable."

Raffi Momjian wrote "Richard has selflessly dedicated his whole life to seeking out and disseminating the truth about the Armenian Genocide. We all owe so much to Richard and feel obligated to continue his important work."

Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier and president of the United Armenian Fund wrote, "It is with great sorrow that I learned of the untimely passing away of a dear friend, great patriot and tireless fighter against Turkish denialism. I wonder who will continue his good work? How many Richard Kloians do we have in this world? I am afraid, very few, if any. May the Good Lord bless his soul and console his heart-broken family and friends everywhere."

Richard Kloian and the Armenian Genocide Resource Center (AGRC) which he founded and directed are best known for the book-length compilation of The Armenian Genocide: News Accounts from the American Press, 1915-1922, a landmark collection of articles reproduced from the New York Times and other sources that were painstakingly compiled from microfilm in the years before digitization and the Internet made historic newspaper stories widely accessible.

Many times Richard Kloian's book proved a decisive tool in winning over political leaders and public institutions to recognize the Armenian Genocide. What could be more persuasive evidence than then current New York Times reports of the genocide day after day as the Armenian holocaust was taking place! Originally published in 1980 and 1981 as Armenian Genocide: First 20th Century Holocaust, subsequent editions through 2007 were expanded to cover the Hamidian massacres of the 1890's and the Adana massacre of 1909.

The Armenian Reporter describe Richard as "an amateur in the highest sense of the word, Richard devoted himself to public education about this crime against humanity, drawing on the social acumen and networking experiences of a rich and varied life. The Detroit native, born March 7, 1937, studied science in high school and English and French in college, also developing interests in astronomy, photography, and music. A retail manager during the work week and an accomplished Latin percussionist on the weekends, he was playing at the Puerto Rican Club in Detroit when he met his future wife Antonia, a beautician and former nun to whom he was married more than 40 years."

Richard did not have higher academic degrees, but he was recognized as an outstanding leader of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. For those who knew him and his work and respected and loved him, his work was seminal and far-reaching. Under his direction, in addition to the best-selling book of news accounts, AGRC compiled hundreds of articles from scholarly journals and published a large number of booklets and readers. Particularly outstanding, the AGRC compiled, edited, produced, and distributed a 400-page resource manual of maps, web sites, photographs, news reports, primary-source documents, scholarly articles on the Genocide and its denial, and U.S. state-level curricula that mandated teaching about the Armenian Genocide.

Richard Kloian also maintained a warm active relationship with many non-Armenian leaders in genocide studies, and saw himself and his work seeking a better world not only for his beloved people but for all peoples.

Please click here for several examples of Richard Kloain's compilations of New York Times articles reporting the Armenian Genocide as it was taking place as they appear in The Armenian Genocide: News Accounts from the Armenian Press, 1915-1922.



The following is a transcript of the funeral service remarks by Roxanne Makasdjian, Chair, By Area Armenian National Committee (ANC):

It’s hard for me to accept that I’m standing here this morning, to say goodbye to Richard. Richard was someone who you never wanted to believe would not be here one day. He was so much younger than his years, and he had such endless energy. Although on many occasions I wondered how his work would be carried on after him, I didn’t really think this time would come.

I met Richard almost immediately after I began volunteering for the Armenian National Committee when I moved here in the 1980’s. He had just published his book, The Armenian Genocide: News Accounts from the American Press, 1915-1922. This was truly a landmark publication because the collection of these New York Times and other articles was not only a useful reference book for researchers, but for groups like the ANC, it was then and still is the perfect public information tool to make the case for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Richard had done it all by himself, spending endless hours at UC Berkeley, going through pages and pages of newspaper microfilm.

When we initiated a committee to help teachers include the Armenian Genocide in their coursework, all roads led to Richard Kloian, who had been a key resource for teachers for years. Getting to know him, I soon realized that he had an unstoppable passion and talent for bringing documentation about the Armenian Genocide to the broad public. I began getting a stream of emails from him, with the most interesting articles, reports, first-hand accounts. Sometimes, it came so fast and furiously, I had to stick them in a folder I called “stuff from Richard” until I could make time to film them all properly.

Richard once told me how this passion of his first bloomed. It was when his father died in 1976. Richard discovered his father’s diary, which told a harrowing tale of genocide survival. It was then that Richard’s life work turned irreversibly to the Armenian Genocide. His new interest filled his evenings after work. Soon, his mission became a full-time volunteer effort, bringing to light this “forgotten history.”

By 1997, he had established the Armenian Genocide Resource Center (AGRC). Through the AGRC, Richard has single-handedly collected a vast amount of documentation on the Armenian Genocide, helped get long-lost memoirs and documents published, and has developed many useful materials for helping locate and acquire historical and current works. He also found films about the Armenian Genocide from around the world and got permission to reproduce them for the general public. As many of you know, one of his most recent labors of love was restoring and editing the only surviving segment of the 1919 silent Hollywood film, “Ravished Armenia.”

Richard’s perseverance and drive were incomparable. His work was an everyday act of courage because each day, by himself, and without any compensation, he fought the powerful forces of “forgetting.” Not only did his work fight historical revisionism, it served to enlighten educators and politicians alike who encounter Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide regularly. His work has helped broaden the discussion of genocide studies because so many non-Armenians sought out his materials and his vast knowledge of historical resources.

But to characterize Richard only in terms of his contributions to Armenian Genocide education would not give the true picture. Born and raised in Detroit, Mich., one of five brothers, Richard, whose Armenian name was Diran, was an extraordinary Renaissance man. He had an avid interest in science, in music, in photography. He was an active member of the Astronomical Society in Detroit, where he organized public events and where he built his first deep space telescope with Dr. Donaldson Craig of Wayne State University. He studied French and comparative literature, and as an accomplished photographer, he was among the first in Detroit to capture on film the early phases of growth that revolutionized the Detroit skyline. And as a professional musician, he played in Detroit’s Latin and jazz orchestras. I’m told it was while playing music that he met his wife of 42 years, Antonia, and we all owe such a debt of gratitude that Antonia gave Richard the space to pursue his passion and give so much to the world.

The list of his accomplishments is so impressive, yet what I keep thinking about is Richard’s sweet and gentle demeanor, his genuine kindness, and his pleasing smile. Thank you, Richard, for brightening and enriching our lives, for teaching us, for showing us the way.

---

Israel Charny, Editor-in-chief of GPN Genocide Prevention Now and Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem wrote Richard's wife Toni, as follows:

I am so sorry! I have the warmest feelings for Richard and so deeply regret his illness and passing. Professionally, I consider him a GIANT on behalf of Armenian Genocide recognition and memory. His devotion to his work in enabling education and memory about the Armenian Genocide was immense. His contribution was one of the most significant, including of course the yeoman job he did in compiling the New York Times articles at the time of the Genocide, but also the excellent compilation of a wide range of resource materials that he provided.

Personally-professionally I have known few other Armenian Genocide professionals who had such a clear understanding of the significance of the genocides of other people along with the Armenian Genocide. And in Richard's case it extended to a profound interest and understanding of the nature of us all as human beings, which I valued so highly. Richard and I had a standing series of joking comments -- in all seriousness of course -- about how we were both aliens sent from planets out there down here to Earth to try, vainly, to convey to human beings the holiness of life.

I appreciated him, respected him and loved him.

---

The Resource Guide on the Armenian Genocide can be found at any of the following locations:

American National Committee America http://www.anca.org/endthegagrule/pdfs/ArmenianGenocide_StudentResources.pdf

University of Minnesota http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/armenian/

Armenian Genocide Resource Library for Teachers of the Genocide Education Project http://www.teachgenocide.com

---

Sources include personal statements as identified and the following published accounts:

Asbarez (May 11,2010). Founder of Armenian Genocide Resource Center, Richard Kloian, laid to rest. http://asbarez.com/?s=kloian&x=0&y=0

Armeniapedia.org (last modified on May 12, 2010). Richard Kloian (1937-2010). Copyright by Raffi Momjian. http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Richard_Kloian

Matossian, Lou Ann (Wednesday May 05, 2010 ). Richard Kloian, 73, pioneering Armenian Genocide educator, passes away. Armenia Reporter. http://www.reporter.am/index.cfm?objectid=B77B3250-5870-11DF-B0670003FF3452C2

Read full text......

The Laws Banning Holocaust Denial

Jacqueline Lechtholz-Zey

I. INTRODUCTION
A survey of the sixteen countries that have enacted laws that either directly criminalize Holocaust denial or can be used to prosecute individuals who deny the Holocaust: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Laws that explicitly ban Holocaust denial
Austria
The Verbotsgesetz 1945 (The Prohibition Act 1945) is an Austrian constitutional law that provided the legal framework for denazification and aimed to suppress any potential of revival of Nazism in Austria. Yet the law did not clearly state that Holocaust denial was a Nazi activity, although the Austrian courts interpreted the act in this way. Because it was becoming more and more difficult to apply the law to neo-Nazi endeavors, particularly when “revisionism” became part and parcel of the neo-Nazi message, the law was finally amended in February of 1992. Among the changes to the law was a section that explicitly bans the denial or gross minimization of Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity, thus making it easier to address Nazi propaganda and historical “revisionism.” The text of this law is as follows:

National Socialism Prohibition Law (1945, Amendments of 1992)
§3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalizing of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years imprisonment.

§3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.

Belgium
The Holocaust denial law in Belgium was passed on March 23, 1995. This law makes it a crime to deny, grossly minimize, attempt to justify, or approve of the genocide committed by the Nazis during WWII. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to 124 EUR, and prosecution is carried out by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities.

Negationism Law (1995, Amendments of 1999)
Art. 1 Whoever, in the circumstances given in article 444 of the Penal Code denies, grossly minimizes, attempts to justify, or approves the genocide committed by the German National Socialist Regime during the Second World War shall be punished by a prison sentence of eight days to one year, and by a fine of twenty six francs to five thousand francs. For the application of the previous paragraph, the term genocide is meant in the sense of article 2 of the International Treaty of 9 December 1948 on preventing and combating genocide. In the event of repetitions, the guilty party may in addition have his civic rights suspended in accordance with article 33 of the Penal Code.

Art.2 In the event of a conviction on account of a violation under this Act, it may be ordered that the judgment, in its entity or an excerpt of it, is published in one of more newspapers, and is displayed, to the charge of the guilty party.

Art.3. Chapter VII of the First Book of the Penal Code and Article 85 of the same Code are also applicable to this Act.

Art. 4. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, as well as any association that at the time of the facts had a legal personality for at least five years, and which, on the grounds of its statutes, has the objective of defending moral interests and the honor of the resistance or the deported, may act in law in all legal disputes arising from the application of this Act.

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic has made denial of the Holocaust as well as negationism of communist atrocities illegal.

Law Against Support and Dissemination of Movements Oppressing Human Rights and Freedoms (2001)
§ 260 (1) The person who supports or spreads movements oppressing human rights and freedoms or declares national, race, religious or class hatred or hatred against other group of persons will be punished by prison from 1 to 5 years. (2) The person will be imprisoned from 3 to 8 years if: a) he/she commits the crime mentioned in paragraph (1) in print, film, radio, television or other similarly effective manner, b) he/she commits the crime as a member of an organized group c) he/she commits the crime in a state of national emergency or state of war

§ 261 The person who publicly declares sympathies with such a movement mentioned in § 260, will be punished by prison from 6 months to 3 years.

§ 261a The person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or communist genocide or other crimes of Nazis or communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years.

France
The Gayssot Act was passed in France on July 13, 1990. The Act criminalizes questioning the existence of crimes of humanity as defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which was used at Nuremberg in 1945 to 1946 to convict Nazi leaders. Robert Faurisson, an infamous Holocaust denier, challenged the Act but the Human Rights Commission upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.

Law No. 90-615 to repress acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia (1990)
Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one years imprisonment or a fine.

Art 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favorable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years imprisonment or a fine.

Germany
Volksverhetzung (“incitement of the people”) is a concept under German criminal law that prohibits the incitement of hatred against a particular group of people.

§130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1.incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

Section 3 above refers to the following crimes:

§ 6 Genocide
(1) Whoever with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group:
1. kills a member of the group,
2. causes serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group, especially of the kind referred to in section 226 of the Criminal Code,
3. inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part,
4. imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group,
5. forcibly transfers a child of the group to another group,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

Hungary
In 1992, The Hungarian Constitutional Court struck down an existing law against Holocaust denial on the grounds that criminalizing it was incompatible with the right to free speech. However, on February 22, 2010, the Hungarian Parliament again passed legislation that criminalizes the minimization or denial of the Holocaust, and President Laszlo Solyom signed the bill into law on March 3, 2010. According to a spokesperson, the current President does not believe that this legislation contravenes the Hungarian constitutional right to free speech.

The reform was passed with a 197-1 vote, with 142 abstentions. The new law will come into effect in early April. The text reads:

Those who publicly hurt the dignity of a victim of the Holocaust by denying or questioning the Holocaust itself, or claim it insignificant, infringe the law and can be punished by prison sentence of up to three years.

Israel
The Knesset (the Supreme Court in Israel) passed a law to criminalize the denial of the Holocaust on July 8, 1986.

Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986
Definitions
1. In this Law, "crime against the Jewish people" and "crime against humanity" have the same respective meanings as in the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law, 5710-1950.

Prohibition of Denial of Holocaust
2. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

Prohibition of publication of expression for sympathy for Nazi crimes
3. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement expressing praise or sympathy for or identification with acts done in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

Permitted publication
4. The publication of a correct and fair report of a publication prohibited by this Law shall not be regarded as an offence thereunder so long as it is not made with intent to express sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity.

Filing of charge
5. An indictment for offences under this Law shall only be filed by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.

Luxembourg
Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997 outlaws Holocaust denial in addition to the denial of other genocides. Punishment for violating this Act is imprisonment up to 6 months and/or a fine. The offense of “negationism and revisionism” applies to

...anyone who has contested, minimized, justified or denied the existence of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in the statutes of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or the existence of a genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1985. A complaint must be lodged by the person against whom the offence was committed (victim or association) in order for proceedings to be brought, Article 450 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997.

Poland
Poland criminalizes both Holocaust denial and the denial of crimes perpetrated by communists.

Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation

Article 55
He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

Article 1
This Act shall govern:
1. the registration, collection, access, management and use of the documents of the organs of state security created and collected between 22 July 1944 and 31 December 1989, and the documents of the organs of security of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning:
a) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:

- Nazi crimes,
- communist crimes,
- other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

b) other politically motivated repressive measures committed by functionaries of Polish prosecution bodies or the judiciary or persons acting upon their orders, and disclosed in the content of the rulings given pursuant to the Act of 23 February 1991 on the Acknowledgement as Null and Void Decisions Delivered on Persons Repressed for Activities for the Benefit of the Independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 1993 No. 34, item 149, of 1995 No. 36, item 159, No. 28, item 143, and of 1998 No. 97, item 604),
2. the rules of procedure as regards the prosecution of crimes specified in point 1 letter a),
3. the protection of the personal data of grieved parties, and
4. the conduct of activities as regards public education.

Romania
Romania proposed an Emergency Ordinance on March 13, 2002 to prohibit Holocaust denial. The law was ratified on May 6, 2006, and also bans racist, fascist, xenophobic symbols, uniforms and gestures. Violations are punishable by up to five years in prison.

Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002
Article 3. – (1) Establishing a fascist, racist or xenophobic organization is punishable by imprisonment from 5 to 15 years and the loss of certain rights.

Article 4. – (1) The dissemination, sale or manufacture of symbols either fascist, racist or xenophobic, and possession of such symbols is punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

Article 5. – Promoting the culture of persons guilty of committing a crime against peace and humanity or promoting fascist, racist or xenophobic ideology, through propaganda, committed by any means, in public, is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

Article 6. – Denial of the Holocaust in public, or to the effects thereof is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

B. Laws that prohibit genocide denial generally
Several countries do not ban Holocaust denial specifically but instead have passed legislation criminalizing the denial of any genocide, which clearly can be enforced against Holocaust deniers as well.

Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein’s criminal code prohibits the denial of genocide:

§ 283 Race discrimination
5. Whoever publicly denies, coarsely trivializes, or tries to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity via word, writing, pictures, electronically transmitted signs, gestures, violent acts or by other means shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years.

Portugal

Article 240: Religious, racial, or sexual discrimination
2 - Whoever in a public meeting, in writing intended for dissemination, or by any means of media:

a) incites violence against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, ethnic or national origin or religion, or

b) defames or slanders an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, ethnic or national origin or religion, particularly through the denial of war crimes or against peace and humanity;

with intent to encourage or incite to racial or religious discrimination, shall be punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years.

Switzerland
The denial of genocide and other crimes against humanity is an imprisonable offense under Swiss law.

SR 311.0 Swiss Penal Code, Article 261 Racial Discrimination

Whoever publicly, by word, writing, image, gesture, acts of violence or any other manner, demeans or discriminates against an individual or a group of individuals because of their race, their ethnicity or their religion in a way which undermines human dignity, or on those bases, denies, coarsely minimizes or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity ... shall be punished with up to three years imprisonment or a fine.

C. Rejections of laws criminalizing Holocaust denial
Because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, Holocaust denial has not been criminalized in the United States. Freedom of expression is also a cornerstone of British society, therefore Holocaust denial has not been prohibited in the United Kingdom either. Italy approved a draft law that imposes jail terms for racially motivated crimes, but does not go so far as to prohibit Holocaust denial specifically, although this was Justice Minister Mastella’s initial aim. Italy has also rejected measures proposed by the European Union to impose EU-wide bans on Holocaust denial, on the basis of protecting freedom of speech. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Bosniak member of the Parliament proposed a draft law in 2007 to criminalize Holocaust denial and the denial of genocide and other crimes against humanity. However, Bosnian Serb MPs have been repeatedly opposed to such legislation. There is concern that such a law might be used as a weapon against their community. As one delegate explains, “[w]ar crimes are a sensitive issue in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am not sure this law would actually lead to reconciliation and justice fulfillment.” He continues on to say that Bosnian Serbs “consider that [the law’s] adoption would cause disagreement and even animosity.”

Several countries formally banned Holocaust denial in the past but the denial has since been decriminalized. As discussed, the Hungarian Constitutional Court formerly struck down a law against Holocaust denial in 1992 on the grounds that doing so was incompatible with the right to free speech. Spain banned genocide denial in general until the Constitutional Court of Spain ruled that prohibiting denial was unconstitutional. Thus, as of November 7, 2007, Holocaust denial is legal, but justification of the Holocaust (or any other genocide, for that matter) is still an imprisonable offense.

Jacqueline Lechtholz-Zey graduated from the Early Entrance Program at California State University Los Angeles at age 19 in 2007. She earned her B.S. in Business Administration with an option in Business Arts-Prelegal. She also minored in Economics and Law and Society. In her year off before starting law school, she had the opportunity to travel to Israel. Her Birthright experience had a tremendous impact on her, and from then on she became even more dedicated to finding meaningful work and a way to preserve human life and dignity. Jackie began her legal studies at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, in Fall of 2008, and in her second year she took Law and Genocide with Professors Michael Bazyler and Stan Goldman. In this course, she wrote her final paper on the propriety of Holocaust denial laws, a portion of which is published here. She is also Chief Articles Editor of the Entertainment Law Review at Loyola, and her article on extending copyright protection to fashion designs will be published in Vol. 30, Issue III.

Currently, Jackie is continuing her work in the field of Holocaust and genocide law by working for Professors Bazyler and Goldman as a research assistant. She is working on a book chapter about the kapo trials, as well as a piece on societal reactions to the Nuremberg trials. While very passionate about genocide prevention, Jackie is also a lover of art and has translated that interest into pursuing fashion law. Though vastly different fields of study, she hopes to find a way to reconcile these passions and ultimately make a meaningful contribution to society. She will graduate from Loyola Law School in May 2011.

Please click here for a fully referenced pdf version of this article

Read full text......

Video of Turkish Embassy Celebration on Genocide Anniversary

The YouTube clip below is of Turkish demonstrators celebrating on April 24, 2010, the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Protesters taunted Armenian Americans, the vast majority of whom had family members who were raped or murdered during the genocide, with signs such as 'Armenian girls like Turkish guys.' Following the protest, the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, welcomed the Turkish demonstrators into the Turkish Embassy.

"Renowned Holocaust and genocide scholar Israel Charny has said that to deny the mass murder of genocide is to 'celebrate the deaths of the same victims and to intimate cynically that the doctrine of power which brought about their destruction is still in force, to be used when opportunity permits.' "

"In light of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's fresh threats to deport undocumented Aremenians from Turkey a few weeks ago, if countries dare to pass resolutions to mark the anniversary of the genocide, Charny's chilling words and this disturbing video illustrate the importance of fighting against U.S. complicity in Turkey's hateful campaign to deny the genocide."
Watch:


Source: Reprinted by Nahapetian, Kate (May 5, 2010), Government Affairs Director, Armenian National Committee of America.

Watch video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNfpYNeSyfE&sns=em

Read full text......

Armenian Jews and Israelis - Remembering and Denial

Yair Auron Lecture in Paris, 2010

The State of Israel continues to struggle against Holocaust denial on one hand, but participates in the denial of another genocide on the other. This most likely will damage the struggle against Holocaust denial in the future. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel is crucial since the denial of the Armenian Genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews. One might view this attitude as a moral failure. I am sure, a great many Jews, in Israel and in the world, will continue the struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel and by the world. This is our obligation to ourselves as human beings; this is our obligation as Jews and as Israelis.

I will speak about the special connections between our two peoples, about Jewish memory and Armenian memory, about the attitudes of the State of Israel to the Armenian Genocide, and then conclude with some general comments about our common responsibilities, Jews and Armenians alike, regarding moral issues.

There are similar characteristics in the history of the Armenian and the Jewish peoples, who for long periods lived as ethno-religious minorities among majorities, different from and hostile to them. The genocides we, Jews and Armenians alike, have suffered have created another similarity and connection between us.

Let me demonstrate the special connections between our two peoples by recalling two examples which appear in my first book:.

In 1918, Shmuel Talkowsky, the secretary of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who became the first president of the State of Israel, wrote with the approval of Weizmann, an important article entitled "The Armenian Question from a Zionist Point of View."

"We Zionists look upon the fate of the Armenian people with a deep and sincere sympathy; we do so as men as Jews and as Zionists. As men our motto is "Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto." "I am a human being. Whatever affects another human being affects me." As Jews our exile from our ancestral home and our centuries of suffering in all parts of the globe have made us, I would fain say specialists in martyrdom; our humanitarian feelings have been refined to an incomparable degree, so much so that the sufferings of other people – even alien to us in blood and remote from us in distance – cannot but strike the deeper chords of our soul and weave between us and our fellow-sufferers that deep bond of sympathy which one might call solidarity of sorrow.

And among all those who suffer around us, is there a people whose record of martyrdom is more akin to ours than that of the Armenians? As Zionists we have a peculiar question of principle. Zionism being in its essence nothing else than the Jewish expression of the demand for national justice, it is natural and logical for us to be deeply interested in the struggle for emancipation of any other living nation. … In our opinion, a free and happy Armenia, a free and happy Arabia, and a free and happy Jewish Palestine, are the three pillars on which will rest the future peace and welfare of the Middle East." This was written, I remind you in 1918. Unfortunately the policy of the State of Israel is very far from the principle raised by the Zionist movement 92 years ago.

Jewish memory and Armenian memory

Jewish history in the post-Holocaust era cannot be understood without an awareness of the profound and lasting influence of the Holocaust. The Second World War and the Holocaust on one hand, and the establishment of the State of Israel on the other, fundamentally changed the history of the Jews. Within a period of only a few years the Jewish People experienced its greatest disaster and witnessed the birth of the Jewish State and Jewish sovereignty.

In spite of the passage of time, Jewish attitudes to the Holocaust and its implications remain a crucial element in contemporary Jewish identity. From the point of view of Jewish and Israeli identity, and from an educational point of view, this raises a substantive question, which is relevant in my opinion also to the Armenians: Is it possible in the long term to foster an identity on the basis of elements which are fundamentally negative? Is not a balance called for in terms of positive Jewish elements?

Similarly, Armenian history in the post-genocide era cannot be understood without an awareness of the profound and lasting influence of the genocide on the first, second, third and now even fourth generation. In spite of the passage of time, and even maybe because of it, Armenian attitudes toward the genocide and its implications remain a crucial element in contemporary Armenian identity in Armenia and, even more, in Armenian communities all over the world. The genocide is a central component today in the attitudes of young Armenians – the third and the forth generation – when viewing themselves as Armenians, be it the U.S, Canada, Armenia, Australia, Israel or elsewhere.

Furthermore, for you Armenians, there is also the painful fact that your genocide is unfortunately not recognized. By denial you have been victimized twice. There is something sad, even depressing in the ongoing efforts of the Armenians and their supporters over 95 years to gain recognition from the international community and the many states where they are living in diasporas as a direct consequence, very often, of the genocide. During the past 20 years I have seen your struggle in Israel, as well as in many other Armenian communities across the world.

The attitudes of the State of Israel

I know how important for the Armenians is the attitude of the Jews, especially the attitude of the State of Israel, to their genocide. Concern with that position is raised again and again, I believe, because the State of Israel was populated by people who were victims of a similar genocide.

The State of Israel has officially refrained from relating to the Armenian Genocide. A combination of factors connected to Israel's relations with Turkey and concepts of the uniqueness of the Shoah have brought about an almost total absence of its mention by Israeli representatives. Government ministers - apart from a few such as Yair Tzaban, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Haim Oron [all members of the same liberal party, Meretz - Ed.] - have systematically avoided the issue altogether by declining to participate in Armenian Memorial Day ceremonies.

Public debates and argument about that official attitude towards the Armenian genocide has erupted several times due to a number of events. In 1978, a film on the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem was banned from being screened. In 1982, the Israeli Government intervened unsuccessfully to bar an International Congress on the subject of the Shoah and Genocide, pressing the organizers to eliminate lectures on the Armenian Genocide. In 1989, Israel was involved in preventing Congress from recognizing the Armenian genocide in the American calendar. In one way or another Israel and Jews were involved in the debate in the State also in1985,1987,1989, 2000, and 2007' and eventually in 2010. In 1990, the showing of "Armenian Journey", a TV film produced in U.S., was banned.

In this context I would like to mention two statements. One was made by Yossi Sarid, at that time the Minister of Education, on April 24, 2000 at the memorial gathering of the Armenian community in Jerusalem. Sarid sympathized with the pain of the Armenians over the denial of the genocide. He concluded his statement with a commitment to ensure that the Armenian Genocide be included in the Israeli secondary school history curriculum.

He stated:

"I would like to see a central chapter on genocide, on this huge and inhuman atrocity. The Armenian genocide should occupy a prominent place in this program, which does justice to the national and personal memory of every one of you, to the memory of all the members of your nation. This is our obligation to you, this is our obligation to ourselves."

Sadly nothing resulted from this courageous statement.

About a year later, on April 10, 2001, the Foreign Minster of Israel (now the president) Shimon Peres was quoted as saying "We regret attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy but not a genocide". This statement was repeated by the Israeli Ambassador to Armenia Rivka Cohen in February 2002. These statements may be regarded as Israel's escalation from passive to active denial, from moderate denial to hard-line denial. An Armenian friend told me, rightly so, "I do not know of any enlightened politician in a democratic state that has ever made remarks such as these; You, the Jews, of all people."

The Armenian Genocide was raised in the Israeli Parliament around the month of April (the Armenian Memorial day) in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by a member of the Knesset, Haim Oron, who asked the Knesset to debate the issue, but the government opposed his request. The issue will be raised by Oron another time in the next weeks, without any chance to gain the majority.

Jewish and Israeli responsibility

It is clear to all those who are involved overtly and covertly in the controversies regarding Israel’s attitude to the Armenian Genocide – Jews, Turks, Armenians – and also to the rest of the world, that the issue has special moral significance. The fact that the country in question is of a people that was the victim of the Holocaust, and the unique problems that resulted, come to the fore .

The recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel is crucial in this regard, since the denial of the Armenian Genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews.

The State of Israel continues to struggle against Holocaust denial on one hand, but participates in the denial of another genocide on the other. This most likely will damage the struggle against Holocaust denial in the future. One might view this attitude as a moral failure. We have to remember that moral claims can have influence only if they are consistent.

Many observers estimate, in the case of the Armenians, that one act could radically change the long-standing denial of their Genocide: recognition of the Genocide by the United States or Israel. These are the pivotal countries that could bring about a Turkish recognition of the Genocide. There is a connection or even interdependence between the decisions of the two states. If one of them recognized the Genocide, sooner or later the second would do the same.

There is no doubt that morally speaking, Israel should be the first. Sadly, however, taking a realistic view of Israeli society and policy, this is not likely to happen in the near future.

Everyone would agree that Israel has no right to bargain with the memory of the Holocaust. But, even more, it has no right – by no means, in any circumstances, and much less so than any other country – to bargain with the memory of another victim group. And yet Israel did just that with the Armenian Genocide. Israel is contributing to the process of genocide denial and by doing so, it also betrays the memory and the legacy of the Holocaust, at least from my point of view.

The attitudes of Israel and its society towards the Armenian genocide and towards other cases of genocide have a unique significance. It is because of the unique history of our people: the victim during the Nazi period, we, Israelis are, unique third parties. Our attitudes towards Genocides – the attitudes towards genocides of the present and towards genocides of the past, is in many ways an example to the rest of the world that finds itself regarding the Israeli attitudes as a moral reference point.

Our common struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide bears, at least for me, a major moral significance, and in our joint moral struggle we must be consistent. That should mean that every human and every people, but in my opinion especially we, Jews and Armenians, have a continuing obligation never again to be victims, of course never to be perpetrators, but also never to be bystanders.

I can assure you that I, and I am sure, a great many Jews, in Israel and in the world, will continue the struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel and by the world. This is our obligation to ourselves as human beings; this is our obligation as Jews and as Israelis.

This lecture was delivered in Paris to the International Colloquiem of the Bureau Francais de la Cause Armeniénne - Armenia-Turkey: How to normalize relations? on April 14, 2010.

Yair Auron is a professor in the field of genocide and contemporary Judaism at the Open University of Israel and the Kibbutzim College of Education.

Professor Auron has published numerous books and essays, mainly on genocide and on Jewish identity in Israel and Europe. He is the author of books in Hebrew such as Between Paris and Jerusalem (Selected Passages of Contemporary Jewish Thought in France); Jewish-Israeli Identity; Sensitivity to World Suffering: Genocide in the 20th Century; and We Are All German Jews: Jewish Radicals in France During the 60s and 70s (also in French). His book The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide was published in both Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers, 2000). His book, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide was published in Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers 2003).

Most recently, Auron is co-author of A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and the Theft of Armenian Wealth (Transaction Publishers, 2009) with Hrayr S. Karagueuzian. He is currently editing for the Open University a series of twelve books in Hebrew entitled Genocide, which includes theoretical volumes concerning the phenomenon of genocide as well as an analysis of case studies such as the Holocaust, the genocide of the Gypsies, the Armenian genocide and other historical and contemporary genocides such as Rwanda, Tibet and Indian population of the Americas. In this series, he published in 2009 Reflections on the Inconceivable: Theoretical Aspects of Genocide Studies, and in 2007 The Armenian Genocide: Forgetting and Denying. In 2006, his book Genocide: So That I Will Not Be among the Silent, was also published in this series. His book Israeli Identities: Jews and Arabs Facing Mirror and the Other in 2010 is published in Israel by Resling and in a few months will be published in English in the United States by Berghahn Books.

Read full text......

U.S. Court of Appeals Hears Oral Arguments in Massachusetts on Armenian Genocide Denial Case

Boston, MA. - The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts, heard oral arguments on March 30, 2010 in the Theodore Griswold, et al. vs. David Driscoll, et al. case. The case centers on the teaching of the Armenian Genocide and a challenge filed by a Turkish-American denialist organization under the guise of a First Amendment defense for the inclusion of denialist literature in public school instructional material. The lawsuit was filed in October 2005 by Griswold, others, and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) against Driscoll in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education for the Massachusetts Department of Education, as well as the Department and the Board of Education.


The case was argued today in front of a three judge panel consisting of Michael Boudin, Jeffery R. Howard, and retired Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court David H. Souter. The Commonwealth's Assistant Attorney General William W. Porter defended the Massachusetts Department of Education. Harvey A. Silverglate, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, spoke on behalf of his clients.

The panel of judges actively questioned both attorneys, while pointing out that this case did not parallel the issues surrounding the removal of books from a library based on political pressure. Justice Souter asked specifically whether the Massachusetts legislature had mandated the teaching of the Armenian Genocide and not the point of view denying it, which Silverglate acknowledged was the case. Questions were also raised as to what would happen if any and all groups were allowed to insist that the government adopt their views, and whether that would open the door to Holocaust deniers.

Assistant Attorney General Porter asserted that Massachusetts had the right to teach about the Armenian Genocide and to exclude denial literature from instructional materials. He argued as well that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that no constitutional right was impaired by adoption of the curriculum, that the teaching guide was protected government speech, and the statute of limitations had expired three years before the claim was filed. Porter asserted as well that the democratic and legal process had worked to result in the Massachusetts curriculum guide as promulgated.

Armenian Assembly of America Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar, applauded Assistant General Attorney Porter for speaking forcefully in defense of the department of education's rights and duties for teaching history accurately and responsibly. "What could be more important than teaching about human rights and the value of tolerance?" asked Mugar. "The historic examples of genocide stand as warnings to all future generations about the critical need to confront the hatreds that threaten to undo efforts at peaceful co-existence."

Attending the hearings were also Arnold R. Rosenfeld of K&L Gates LLP, Anthony Barsamian and Van Z. Krikorian of the Armenian Assembly, Mark Mamigonian of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, and Sonya Nersessian and Mark Fleming of the Armenian Bar Association.

Rosenfeld, who along with Duke University School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, and Van Krikorian filed amicus briefs on behalf of Armenian Genocide survivors, descendants of survivors, and the Armenian Assembly, stated after the oral argument that he "heard no legal or factual arguments presented by the plaintiffs that would justify the Appeals Court overruling Chief Judge Wolf's well written opinion that the case should be dismissed."

In contradictory filings by the ATAA and the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF), ATAA's attorney Silverglate argued that "the plaintiffs have never in this litigation posited a view - any view -on the question of whether the events at issue do or do not constitute the crime of genocide as defined by historians or by international law." Yet at the same time Silverglate took the position that "contra-genocide" websites should be included in the curriculum, overlooking the inherent contradiction of "contra-genocide" information, which does hold a position on the Armenian Genocide by disputing or denying it. Silverglate also failed to advise the court that the websites in question, whether of the ATAA or the Turkish Embassy, display brazenly denialist pages on the Armenian Genocide, therein holding yet again a very distinct view of history, disqualifying them as either pedagogically objective or scholarly.

Meanwhile their supporting organization, the TALDF, in an amicus brief, resorted to invoking a recent California court decision that, ignoring the position of the current Obama administration as well as the historic record of the United States on the Armenian Genocide, ruled, according to TALDF, that "state laws officially recognizing or affirming the Armenian genocide thesis are constitutionally preempted by the express foreign policy of the United States."

Indicative of the type of whitewashed history the ATAA would prefer taught in public schools, it argued on the one hand in its amicus brief that "the clear intent of the [Massachusetts curriculum] statue is to leave the teaching of the these topics and the formulation of the [human rights and genocide teaching] Guide to educators, in consultation with academic experts." All the same, it also attacked the very experts who can best inform on the subject matter by accusing the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) of "smear tactics" and "calumny." Silverglate even disputed the IAGS's comparison of Armenian Genocide deniers with "Holocaust deniers," when membership of the IAGS is mostly composed of Holocaust experts.

The real intentions of the TALDF, however, were revealed by the activities of Bruce Fein, whose June 4, 2009 article in the Huffington Post is headlined "Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths." Fein, however, has not confined his campaign of denial to commentary alone. He is also the lead attorney in what is tantamount to a harassment suit filed by TALDF against the Southern Poverty Law Center for revealing how Guenter Lewy, the author of a spurious book on the Armenian massacres, is part of the overall Turkish campaign to deny and cover up the Armenian Genocide.

Effectively Fein and his cohorts have made themselves the instruments of the Turkish government's standing policy of suppressing discussion of the Armenian Genocide and exporting to the United States Article 301 of the Turkish penal code intended to discourage mention of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey by threatening prosecution.

The TALDF also characterized the court's decision supporting the inappropriateness of including contra-genocide websites in the Massachusetts curriculum as equivalent to "electronic book burning." In a further ludicrous and offensive argument implicitly equating the Armenian-American community of Massachusetts to the Ku Klux Klan, TALDF attorneys and denialists extraordinaire Bruce Fein and David Saltzman asked for "heightened constitutional protection" for the Turkish-American community "from government overreaching, subjugation, or discrimination."

The appeals argued at this time resulted from the major blow dealt to Turkey's global campaign to suppress the truth about the Armenian Genocide when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf ruled in June 2009 in favor of the Massachusetts Department of Education, allowing it to continue teaching the facts of the Armenian Genocide, and other crimes against humanity, in public schools across the Commonwealth as constitutionally protected government speech. Shortly after this landmark decision, as part of its ongoing campaign to derail human rights education, the ATAA and its attorney Silverglate filed an appeal in July 2009.

The court's ruling preserved the teaching of accurate history, which is part of the official "Massachusetts Guide to Choosing and Using Curricular Materials on Genocide and Human Rights," prepared in 1999. In 2005, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), along with others, filed the suit against the Massachusetts Department of Education arguing that the Commonwealth violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by removing materials from the curriculum that deny the events of 1915.

The Armenian Assembly responded when the suit was filed, hiring Professor Chemerinsky, one of the nation's leading First Amendment experts, and co-counsel Rosenfeld. Over the past five years, the Assembly and others have challenged the ATAA by filing a series of pleadings including amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs intended to assist the Court in bringing the case to a conclusion in favor of the Commonwealth.

Presenting an amicus brief before Judge Wolf, attorneys Rosenfeld and Krikorian warned that if the court accepted the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, it would open the door for any extremist group, such as Holocaust deniers, to challenge curriculum matters in court.

In December 2009 the Armenian Assembly again filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the Commonwealth, when the ATAA and its supporters appealed the June 2009 decision by Judge Wolf.

In its brief, the Armenian Assembly stated that: "This lawsuit is an unprecedented attempt by the plaintiffs to utilize the federal courts as a vehicle for their unconstitutional intrusion into educational policy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is motivated by the plaintiffs' claim based on its historically and educationally unsupported assertions, that there is a credible position that the Armenian Genocide did not occur, and therefore that view point should be part of the Curriculum Guide on teaching about the Armenian Genocide issued by the state Department of Education."

The brief also stated: "The amicus curiae are interested in ensuring that the Massachusetts Curriculum Guide, prepared by responsible educators, not be altered by lawsuit by those who seek to use the federal courts to advance their own view of history, the denialist view," and made the case that the plaintiffs lacked standing to dispute government speech and had suffered no damages, questioning how the accurate teaching of history could result in damages. The brief further stated: "First plaintiffs suffer no injury from the content of the Curricular Guide promulgated by the Department of Education. Their only injury is that they disagree with what might be taught in the public schools. But such an ideological disagreement is not a cognizable injury."

The Assembly also expressed its disappointment with the American Civil Liberties Union decision to file an amicus brief in support of ATAA, which completely ignored the real intent of the lawsuit and the long history of the ATAA as the foremost denialist organization in the United States with a record of disputing the facts of the Armenian Genocide, a crime against humanity which it continues to describe as allegations and falsehoods. ACLU's position supported a one-way street that paradoxically would deny the freedom of speech to instructors, scholars and others who want the Armenian Genocide subject taught accurately and objectively.

In view of the importance of the case, many other organizations have joined in supporting the Massachusetts Department of Education by filing amicus briefs, indicting? the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Armenian Bar Association took the lead in filing jointly on behalf of the Armenian National Committee of America, the Irish Immigration Center, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, the Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Research and Documentation.

Armenian Assembly Board of Trustees Counselor Van Krikorian, repeating his remarks welcoming the court's June decision, restated: "In light of the fact that Turkey criminalizes honest discussion of the Armenian Genocide, it is especially ironic that Turkish denialists and their supporters turned to U.S. courts in an attempt to twist freedom of speech in America. Even though the court viewed this case 'in the light most favorable to plaintiffs,' it still ruled in favor of truth, history and the U.S. Constitution. The sooner Turkey comes to terms with its past, the better it will be for everyone."

Source: U.S. Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in Massachusetts on Armenian genocide denial case. Armenian Assembly of America.Partially edited by GPN (March 2, 2010). Email: info@aaainc.org Phone: 202 393 3434.
Excerpted from Press Release by the Armenian Association of America.

Read full text......

A Heated TV Debate between Norman Finkelstein and Israel Charny on the Holocaust : CrossTalk on Holocaust: Murder Revenues

Title display of program by RTV:
"CrossTalk on Holocaust: Murder Revenues" and 'Holocaust Industry' Refers to Those Who Seek Profits from the Genocide Against the Jews"

Please click the play button in the screen above for CrossTalk on Holocaust - Part 1
Please click here for CrossTalk on Holocaust - Part 2
Please click here for CrossTalk on Holocaust - Part 3

A "heated debate" between Norman Finkelstein, a well known debaser of Holocaust memory and meaningfulness and Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem took place on RTV (Russian TV), in English, on January 27 2010, the day marked in the world by the United Nations as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Charny, who was filmed in a studio in Jerusalem while Finkelstein was filmed in New York, and the moderator directing the show was filmed in Moscow, tells that he was invited in calls from Moscow to appear on a show commemorating the Holocaust and agreed, and only when he asked who else would be on the show was he told it would be Finkelstein. Charny then continued in his agreement to appear knowing that he would be faced with the abusiveness of Finkelstein’s harangues against “shoa business.” He describes how at the conclusion of the filming, he was approached by a staff person in the studio in Jerusalem, a Russian Jews who has settled in Israel, who expressed heartfelt thanks for what he had said; and that he later also received a call from a staff person in Moscow in which she said that she could not have imagined that a person “could be so filled with hate” -- and asked for permission to invite Charny to reappear on RTV in the future.

Charny also reports that at least one very honored colleague, who is also a good friend, said to him that he would never agree to a debate with a denier. This is a position that has been taken by several thoughtful writers on denials of genocides, including Deborah Lipstadt in respect of deniers of the Holocaust. Ironically, Lipstadt was forced by David Irving into a huge "debate" in the great victory she had won over him and thereby over all deniers of the Holocaust. Charny has always taken the position that there is a need for some selective public confrontations and debates of deniers who are otherwise known to be causing noteworthy damage to memory and reverence. In this respect, Charny tells his favorite story of a radio debate in the US years ago between Lily Kopecky, a bonafide survivor of Auschwitz (who headed a survivor organization in Israel and published regularly a column, “Voice of the Auschwitz Survivor” in the Internet on the Holocaust and Genocide that was published by the Institute in Jerusalem over a ten year period), and Arthur Butz, who was well known for his Holocaust-denying best-seller, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Butz denied the gas chambers and ovens; but Kopecky herself had been an actual member of the Sonderkommando, and when she spoke as a genuine eyewitness, Butz walked out of the radio studio.

Is Finkelstein a bonafide denier? Denial intrinsically means an assertion that there was no Holocaust and it is true that Finkelstein does not do that. But we have over the years also identified denials of genocides though minimization, trivialization, and deflection of the meanings of the genocide --these concepts have developed both about the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, let alone the most virulent of all denial strategies, attacking the victims instead of the perpetrators (see the important works of Manfred Gerstenfeld on denials of the Holocaust and Richard Hovanissian on denials of the Armenian Genocide, for fine examples).

In Charny’s concept, Finkelstein very much stands convicted of being a denier!

Sources:
Russia Today - Russian TV (RTV) and GPN Staff Writeup (January 27, 2010).
Read full text......

Turkish Student in France denying the Armenian Genocide: "Even if it did happen, they deserved it"

Mustafa Dogan, a 13 year old Turk, was suspended from a school in Nancy for two days for denial of the Armenian Genocide, Today's Zaman reported. Dogan's history teacher asked a question about the Armenian Genocide in a written exam. Having previously argued with the teacher over the issue, the Turkish student wrote, "Even if it did happen, they deserved it."

Source: California Courier (November 26 2009). Turkish student in France punished over Armenian Genocide denial.

Read full text......

US Anti-Defamation League Again Denies 1915 Genocide

Abraham Foxman, the Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League Jewish organization in the U.S. declared that organization's position in connection with the events of 1915 has not changed and they continue supporting Ankara in that issue. According to the Beirut based Azdag newspaper, Foxman also expressed hope that the latest Turkish-Israeli tension will be overcome as Turkish-Jewish strong friendship has always existed. In August 2007 Foxman had responded to protests against ADL's denials of the Armenian Genocide. The Boston Globe then reported: "The national director of the Anti-Defamation League bowed to pressure from both the Jewish and Armenian communities yesterday and officially acknowledged the genocide of Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turks more than 90 years ago. In doing so, Abraham H. Foxman reversed years of ADL policy and a position he had reaffirmed when he fired the ADL's New England regional director, Andrew H. Tarsy, for defying the national organization and acknowledging the genocide.

'We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-19018 perpetrated by the Ottoman empire against Armenians as massacres and atrocities,' Foxman said in a written statement. But upon reflection, Foxman continued, "the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide.' "


Sources:
Obrien, Keith (August 22, 2007). ADL chief bows to critics: Foxman cites rift, calls Armenian deaths genocide. Boston Globe.
California Courier (December 3, 2009). U.S. Jewish group again denies 1915 genocide.

Read full text......

Holocaust Denial Laws and Other Legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism

Michael J. Bazyler
Professor of Law
Professional affiliation at time of original work:
von Oppenheim Research Fellow International Institute for Holocaust Studies, Yad Vashem
and Whittier Law School, California, USA.
Currently at Chapman University Law School, California, USA.

This paper was originally presented at a lecture to Yad Vashem. The original version appears on the Yad Vashem website.

I. Introduction

As a result of the enormous suffering inflicted upon the world by the Nazi regime, and especially Europe, a number of European countries have enacted laws criminalizing both the denial of the Holocaust and the promotion of Nazi ideology.

The aim of these laws is to prevent the resurrection of Nazism in Europe by stamping out at the earliest opportunity – or to use the phrase “to nip it in the bud” – any public reemergence of Nazi views, whether through speech, symbols, or public association.

Individuals and groups today promoting Nazism, often called neo-Nazis, do not limit their ideology to just anti-Semitism. Part and parcel of their message also involves hatred of other minority groups, most often individuals of African, Arab and Asian descent, and immigrants from non-European nations.

As a result, a number of the European laws banning neo-Nazi messages also ban racist and hate speech. Some also criminalize the denial of other genocides, most prominently the genocide of the Armenians.

The anti-Nazi laws do not exist in every European country. Presently, the following European countries have some legislation criminalizing the Nazi message, including denial of the Holocaust: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. Holocaust denial is also illegal in Israel.

Some of these countries, like Germany and Austria, take these laws very seriously and vigilantly prosecute both speech and behavior having any reference to Nazis and Nazism. Others, like Lithuania and Romania, despite laws on the books, enforce them sporadically.

A last set of countries put a higher value on free speech over suppression of neo-Nazism and freely allow promotion of the Nazi message. In these countries, freedom of the press and freedom of speech are vehemently upheld even to the detriment of other rights. These countries include the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Scandinavian nations.

In 2005, the European Union considered enacting common rules banning or restricting the use of Nazi symbols and promotion of Nazi ideology, including Holocaust denial. However, the EU’s Executive Commission eventually recommended against such EU-wide legislation, noting that it would be "unwise" to seek a ban across the 25-nation bloc, citing the differing views in the countries involved.

One example of the disparity in European laws dealing with promotion of Nazi ideology concerns the availability of Hitler’s notorious autobiography, Mein Kampf [My Struggle]. Officially, Mein Kampf cannot be purchased in Germany, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, but the book is readily available in Russia, Romania, the United States and the U.K.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, press and association; such guarantees prohibit suppression of the Nazi message. As a result, neo-Nazi parties are completely legal (just like during the Cold War years, the Communist Party of the United States was allowed to exist) and their anti-Semitic and racist messages are protected by the Constitution. The only limitation on such speech, according to the Supreme Court, are calls for immediate violence.

It should also be noted that a multilateral human rights treaty to which 160 countries are parties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, obliges member nations to pass domestic legislation prohibiting advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. As a result, countries that do not specifically criminalize denial of the Holocaust do prosecute individuals who promote hate speech. The line dividing these two types of conduct – Holocaust denial and hate speech – is murky and individuals engaging in Holocaust denial usually do so in the context of making Jew-hating statements. These individuals are then prosecuted for violating hate speech prohibitions.

II. Western European nations with laws banning denial of the Holocaust and promotion of anti-Semitic and racist speech

Let me discuss two representative Western European countries with Holocaust denial laws – Germany and France – and set out how these laws are applied in these two countries.

A. Germany

1. The Law

In the aftermath of World War II, the National Socialist Party (the Nazi party) of Germany was considered a criminal organization and therefore banned. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 likewise ruled that the Nazi Party was a criminal organization.

German law, however, does not just stop at banning the Nazi Party. As part of efforts to overcome its Nazi past, Germany has criminalized denial of the Holocaust and also banned the use of insignia related to Hitler's regime and, as mentioned above, written materials or images promoting the Nazi message.

Section 130 of the German Penal Code prohibits denial or playing down of the genocide committed under the National Socialist regime (§ 130.3), including through dissemination of publications (§ 130.4). This includes public denial or gross trivialization of international crimes, especially genocide/the Holocaust.

The law has been amended a number of times since its initial passage in 1985.

In 1985, Holocaust denial was outlawed as an ‘insult’ to personal honor (i.e. an ‘insult’ to every Jew in Germany) and a penalty was set under the 1985 law of up to one year in prison or a fine.

In 1994, Holocaust denial became a criminal offense under a general anti-incitement law. The law states that incitement, denial, approval of Nazism, trivialization or approval, in public or in an assembly, of actions of the National Socialist regime, is a criminal offense. The 1994 amendment increased the penalty to up to five years imprisonment.

It also extended the ban on Nazi symbols and anything that might resemble Nazi slogans.

A special clause in Article 130 provides for community service for offenders under eighteen years of age.

The sale of Hitler’s notorious autobiography, Mein Kampf [My Struggle], is also banned in Germany and in a number of other European countries occupied by Nazi Germany, as will be discussed later.

2. Recent applications

The German anti-Nazi law is strictly interpreted. For example, a German man went on trial in September 2006 for displaying Nazi symbols including swastikas even though he was campaigning against far-right extremism - the swastikas had lines drawn through them representing rejection.

State Prosecutor Bernhardt Häussler urged a Stuttgart state court to fine Jürgen Kamm, owner of a mail order company that sells anti-Nazi t-shirts and badges. 6,000 Euros [$7,610] for selling merchandise that carry the swastikas and other Nazi symbols through his mail-order business. "Swastikas shouldn't be displayed in such a striking way," Häussler said, adding that he hopes the outcome of this trial will bring about a complete ban of Nazi symbols in public spaces.

Defense attorney Michael Wolff argued that Kamm was using the symbols to fight against neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists. Kamm explained: "It should not be illegal to use the symbols against Nazis."

The prosecutor disagreed. He argued that German law strictly forbids the use of symbols associated with the Nazi regime, no matter in what context they are used. He contended that it is irrelevant what the intent of the wearer is, and also that it did not matter that the symbol had been altered. The symbol should simply not be used publicly.

Perhaps such a literal interpretation of the law seems to be going too far. Several politicians, including the head of the Green party Claudia Roth, in reaction reported themselves to prosecutors in Stuttgart for wearing anti-Nazi t-shirts and buttons that include the banned symbols. Roth called the trial “a gift to the far-right.” Moreover, Germany's federal court of justice ruled in 1973 that it was not illegal to produce a swastika providing it had clearly been altered for the purposes of protesting against Nazism.

Nevertheless, the judge found Kamm guilty and fined him 3,600 Euros [$4,500]. The case is presently on appeal.

A much more serious case of Holocaust denial prosecution involves the notorious denier Ernst Zundel. German-born Zundel, now in his 60’s, emigrated in 1958 to Canada, from where he began disseminating in print form a substantial amount of material denying the Holocaust. In 1974, Zundel published a booklet penned by a British Holocaust denier entitled Did Six Million Really Die? His audience became much larger with the rise of the Internet and through the reach of a website created by his now wife and webmaster, Ingrid Rimland, , which includes references to such books as Truth at Last–Exposed. Because of free speech guarantees in the United States allowing Zundel to freely disseminate his views, however vile, the Zundelsite uses a U. S. based Internet service provider.

An excerpt from an article penned by Zundel in 1977 titled "Our New Emblem: The Best of Two Worlds" (referring to a design that merged a swastika and the American flag) and published in the magazine White Power is representative of his message:

Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....Through us, the White majority of Europe and America, the Jewish minority have obtained their advantages, including their Israel, their Federal Reserve, their World Bank and their International Monetary Fund. In exchange for these advantages, the Jews give us -- their White hosts -- wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down the road with them -- all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse. We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews' expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world's slave masters.

Canada twice tried to prosecute him for his activities under their laws criminalizing intentional dissemination of false news. Even though he was twice convicted, Zundel’s convictions were overturned by Canadian appellate courts. On appeal of his second conviction, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 declared the “spreading of false news” criminal statute as incompatible with Canada’s free speech guarantees and therefore unconstitutional.

In 2005, Canadian immigration officials succeeded, after Zundel exhausted his judicial appeals process, to deport Zundel back to Germany. In November 2005, he was brought to trial before a state court in Mannheim, Germany to face charges of incitement, libel and disparaging the dead. As of this presentation, the trial still continues.

3. Growing Problem of Neo-Nazism in Germany and Need for Such Criminal Legislation

Despite this strict interpretation of the German so-called “Auschwitz lie” law, promotion of Nazi ideology is growing in two important areas: (1) music and (2) on the Internet.

a. Skinhead music

Germany's neo-Nazis are increasingly using music to spread their message, particularly among the unemployed youth of the former communist East Germany, according to experts on extremism in Germany.

In 2004, neo-Nazis applied for permission to hold 137 concerts, mostly in the poor eastern provinces of the former East Germany. Figures released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution show that from January to September 2005, the authorities had received 100 such requests and the "trend shows no sign of slowing down." The official added that the amount of racist audio and video material seized by German authorities had also increased.

Recently, the extreme right National Democratic Party (NPD) in Germany began using music as part of its strategy to spread racist, anti-Semitic and anti-capitalist messages to German youth by distributing thousands of free CDs in front of schools. A rap group called Dissau Crime released a song called "Zyklon D," named after the type of gas used by the Nazis in their gas chambers during the Holocaust.

The impact of these messages cannot be ignored. In 2004, the NDP claimed its first regional success when it obtained 9.2 percent of the votes in a regional election in the German state of Saxony. According to Patrick Moreau, a French researcher who studies extremist groups in Germany, "In the new states, where unemployment stands at up to 40 percent, the NPD offers the youth a haven where they feel they are among friends, where they can drink beer and listen to music….It is a slow politicization through music.”

German authorities have tried to clamp down on the spread of racist music. In 2005, the lead singer of the German extremist band "Landser"-- Michael Regener – was sentenced to three years in prison for belonging to a criminal organization. In a symbolic defiance of authorities, Regener gave a performance on the evening before he was going to enter prison.

b. The Internet

The main purveyor of neo-Nazi hate speech (including music), however, is still the Internet. For music, the neo-Nazi websites offer free downloading of their antisemtic and racist songs. These sites are set up outside Germany, such as in the United States and Denmark, where their existence is not prohibited (see further discussion below).

B. France

1. The Law

French law does not explicitly criminalize denial of the Holocaust. Rather, “Law No 90-615 of 13 July 1990 tending to repress any racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic acts,” commonly known in France as the Gayssot Law (Loi Gayssot) after its author, makes it an offense to question the existence of “crimes against humanity” as they are defined in the Nuremberg Charter.

Article R645-1 of the French Penal Code prohibits the public display of Nazi uniforms, insignias and emblems.

In October 2006, the French National Assembly also adopted a bill making it a crime to contest that the massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constituted genocide. The bill, yet to become law in France as of the time of this presentation, was heavily debated both in France and abroad. In retaliation for the National Assembly’s vote, Turkey suspended military relations with France. In 2007, the bill will be considered by the French Senate and then, if passed by that chamber, by French President Jacques Chirac who must sign it into law.

2. Application

In October 2006, French judicial authorities opened a judicial investigation to determine whether French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen should be tried for comments denying the brutality of the Nazi occupation of France during World War II. As a result, a French investigating magistrate is presently considering whether to recommend prosecution of Le Pen for "justifying war crimes" and "complicity in contesting crimes against humanity." Le Pen has a history of making statements disparaging the Holocaust. His most infamous statement, for which he was not prosecuted, was to label the gas chambers a mere “detail of the history of World War II.”

The most notoroius Holocaust denier in France, however, is Robert Faurisson, a former professor of literature at the University of Lyon. Faurisson has been prosecuted on several occasions for his public statements and publications denying the Holocaust. In 1983, Faurisson was fined and given a three month suspended sentence for "racial defamation" after making remarks on a radio show supporting Holocaust denial. In 1990, Faurisson gave an interview to a far-right magazine where he described the gas chambers as a "myth" and was thereupon charged under the Gayssot Law. He was convicted and sentenced to a 250,000 franc ($50,000) fine of which 100,000 francs ($20,000) was suspended. Faurisson appealed his conviction all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which upheld the Gayssot Law as not being incompatible with European guarantees of freedom of expression, and dismissed Faurisson’s appeal.

France was also the forum for another famous Holocaust denial-related case. In LICRA v.Yahoo! Inc., a French Jewish student group, Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisemitisme et Union des etudiants juifs de France, obtained a court order in 2000 ordering Yahoo! to modify its website so that users in France are denied access to that portion of the site listing auction sales of memorabilia from the Nazi period. The French court found that the availability of such items in France through the Internet, even though the sales were conducted in the United States, to be in violation of the French law cited above, Article R645-1, banning the public display of Nazi symbols.

Yahoo! did not appeal the French court decision but instead brought a separate action in the United States seeking to bar its application in the United States on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. The lower court granted Yahoo!’s application, but a federal appellate court in 2006 reversed and dismissed the case on the ground that American law cannot regulate French criminal legislation when it is applied in France.

III. Eastern Europe

Western European nations are not the only ones to criminalize denial of the Holocaust. Eastern European nations after their liberation from Communism have also followed suit, but with a wrinkle. For example, in November 2006, the Estonian government approved a draft law making it a crime to display Nazi-era symbols in public. Because of its history of Soviet occupation, Estonia also added a prohibition against the public display of Soviet-era symbols, such as the hammer and sickle. Current legislation bans inciting hatred on the grounds of political views or ethnic or social status, but does not specifically mention symbols. The maximum penalty under the new law would be three years in prison. "It will be decided case-by-case if an act of displaying the symbols of the occupying regimes incites hatred and thus constitutes violation of the law or not," said Justice Minister Rein Lang. "Nobody is going to ban the Soviet and Nazi symbols from being used in a theatrical performance or in research."

Historians remain divided over whether Soviet-era crimes should be equated with Nazi ones, including the Holocaust. Eastern European governments are also split over restrictions on symbols because of concerns about freedom of speech. Estonia, however, was not the first one to take the step of banning both Nazi and Communist-era symbols. Other former communist nations enacting similar bans since the fall of the Iron Curtain include Latvia, Hungary, and Poland. Latvia, Estonia's neighbor, which suffered a similar fate, has a law banning the use of both Soviet and Nazi symbols at public meetings. Hungary also bars use of the Arrow Cross symbol of its WWII pro-Nazi regime, plus the swastika, as well as Soviet symbols. Poland, one of the most serious victims of Nazi barbarity, in article 55 of the Polish Criminal Code criminalizes denial of both Nazi-era and Communist-era crimes.

IV. European nations without laws banning denial of the Holocaust and promotion of anti-Semitic and racist

The Scandinavian countries to date have put a higher premium on free speech over criminalizing Holocaust denial or hate speech. For example, in Denmark a private radio station -- Radio Oasis -- broadcasts uncensored, right-wing extremist propaganda and does so with the support of state funds under a Danish law guaranteeing state funds for non-commercial radio and television stations. Under that law, Radio Oasis receives a yearly subsidy from the state totaling nearly 50 percent of the station’s yearly expenses. Among its offerings, Radio Oasis features songs by neo-Nazi bands and messages guarding what the station perceives to be “the pure, white race of Danes.”

A. Great Britain

Great Britain likewise does not criminalize Holocaust denial or the public display of Nazi symbols. When Prince Harry, for instance, appeared at a costume party wearing a Nazi uniform, he was roundly criticized for his insensitivity, but it was clear that no British laws were broken. In contrast, when years earlier a partygoer in Germany appeared wearing a Hitler mask, criminal charges were brought against him.

Despite the absence of Holocaust denial laws, Great Britain was the scene of one the most publicized legal events involving Holocaust denial. In 1996, self-described British historian David Irving brought a civil defamation suit against American professor Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books stemming from a book on Holocaust deniers written by Lipstadt and published in 1994 by Penguin. In the book, Lipstadt named Irving as a Holocaust denier. Irving’s suit claimed that the allegation damaged his reputation.

While Irving began his writing career as a mainstream historian of World War II, his views over the years became more bizarre and he began to ally himself with groups denying the Holocaust, before whom he has made numerous appearances. In 1985, Irving appeared as a defense witness in Ernst Zundel’s second trial in Canada. While Irving in the past promulgated the controversial thesis that Hitler had not known about or ordered the destruction of European Jewry, at the Zundel trial he went a step further by nothing that he now was convinced that no gas chambers had been present at Auschwitz. At rally of Holocaust deniers in Calgary, Canada in 1991, Irving announced: “I don’t see any reasons to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It’s baloney. It’s a legend. . . . I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died in the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car . . . than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.”

By the time Irving filed his suit against Lipstadt he was already notorious on the Holocaust denial scene. What made him different from others calling the Holocaust a lie was that he was an author whose works were published by prominent publishing houses. Despite his bizarre pronouncements, he was still viewed by some as a respected military historian. This, according to Lipstadt, made Irving “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” He was “familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote in her book, and “bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Lipstadt went on to describe Irving as a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers” and an “ardent admirer of Hitler.”

After a two-month trial in London, the trial judge issued a 333-page opinion ruling decisively against Irving. The opinion concludes with the following finding:

My conclusion [is] that Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier. He repeatedly makes assertions about the Holocaust which are offensive to Jews in their terms and unsupported by or contrary to the historical record…. Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti Semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo Nazism.

In February, 2006, Irving was jailed in Austria for three years for Holocaust denial. His arrest and trial were based on speeches he made in Austria during a 1989 visit and lecture series when he stated there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and no extermination camps in the Third Reich. He also called Adolf Hitler a protector of Europe's Jews. During his trial, Irving claimed that he had again changed his views on gas chambers. He told the judge that he is now convinced, contrary to his earlier assertions in the London defamation trial, at the Zundel trial and in 1989, that gas chambers did in fact exist. However, he continued to doubt the figure of 6 million Jews killed. The Austrian judge nevertheless found him guilty of violating Austrian law. As of this presentation, he is still in prison and appealing his conviction.

V. North America

A. Canada

Section 281 of the Canadian federal criminal code prohibits the promotion of hatred against any "identifiable group," but the statute is notoriously difficult to prosecute. For this reason, for example, it was not used against Ernst Zundel during his trials in Canada. The previous discussion noted the difficulty of trying someone for Holocaust denial in Canada in light of the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court that laws attempting to criminalize such denial are incompatible with Canadian guarantees of free speech.

B. The United States

Broad interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court of the First Amendment guarantees in its constitution has made denial of the Holocaust, promotion of Nazi ideology and dissemination of racist and anti-Semitic speech completely legal under American law.

As a result, most of the Internet websites with neo-Nazi content originate in the United States but are available to anyone in the world with access to the Internet.

One of the most infamous cases confirming this right was the march by the neo-Nazis in the 1970’s in the Chicago neighborhood of Skokie, home to many Holocaust survivors. The organizers specifically chose Skokie because of the large survivor population. Despite governmental attempts to stop the march as an affront to the dignity to the survivors and the trauma to be inflicted upon them of seeing Nazis march in their neighborhood, the federal courts allowed the march to proceed.

NGOs in the U.S., such as the ACLU, vigorously defend neo-Nazis whenever their activities are aimed to be curtailed, and the ACLU has been heavily criticized for its work on behalf of neo-Nazis. The ACLU’s response is that it will defend anyone’s right to free speech, whatever their political affiliation and regardless of the vile content of the speech, since the ACLU only represents one client: The First Amendment.

Since the First Amendment allows Holocaust deniers to disseminate their views with impunity, notorious deniers have found safe refuge in the United States. Ernst Zundel temporarily lived in the United States until he was deported back to Canada for visa violations. In April 2004, an international conference of Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis convened in honor of Zundel was held in Sacramento.

Home-grown deniers also abound in the United States. Arthur Butz, an engineering professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, has for many years issued texts denying the Holocaust, including the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The scholarly-sounding Institute of Historical Review, based in Southern California, likewise freely disseminates materials both in print and on the Internet denying the Holocaust. Its website reproduces the entire text of the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? by British Holocaust denier Richard Verrall, (written under the pseudonym Richard E. Harwood), and published by Ernst Zündel in 1974.

VI. Muslim World

While every part of the world seems to have some individual or group espousing Holocaust denial – Australia, for example, has Frederick Toben and his scholarly-sounding Adelaide Institute –a major region from where Holocaust denial is regularly emanated is the Muslim world.

This includes Holocaust denial not only coming from countries with majority Muslim populations like the Arab states, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia, but also pronouncements from Muslim leaders in the West. In July 2006, Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, the mufti of Australia and a member of Prime Minister John Howard's Muslim Community Reference Group, dismissed the Holocaust as a "Zionist lie" in a series of fiery sermons.

Muslim-majority countries, however, seem to have the most frequent and most consistent pattern of Holocaust denial pronouncements, using statements first made by Holocaust deniers in the West. The most frequent assertion questions the number of Jews killed during World War II, and books such as The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Did Six Million Really Die? have been translated into Arabic and are widely sold.

In 2005, the rhetoric acquired a new spokesperson: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a speech made that December, Ahmadinejad labeled the Holocaust a “myth” and a "fairy tale." In a March 2006 speech he again denied the Holocaust, adding this time:

They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves. If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream.

These statements, coming in the aftermath of his earlier statement in October 2005 calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map” caused a large outry in the West, with political leaders and parties loudly condemming Ahmadinejad’s remarks.

Ahmadinejad’s speeches were followed by a Holocaust cartoon contest held in Tehran seeking to mock the Holocaust. The contest, launched by an Iranian newspaper, was publicized as a response to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that sparked rage among Muslims worldwide.

On December 11, 2006, Iran held a a conference questioning the Holocaust. As reported by the International Herald Tribune, set to attend the conference was an Israeli Arab Muslim lawyer from Nazareth, Khaled Kasab Mahameed, who aimed to directly confront the phenomena of Muslim Holocaust denial. According to Mahameed,

Instead of trying to understand the Holocaust and learn something from it, they choose to deny it. . . . I'm going to tell them that there is no argument about the facts, and that they must try to understand how the Holocaust has shaped the positions of the Jews, of Europe, of America. I will tell them they must internalize its meaning and not say it didn't happen.

Iran refused to grant Mahameed a visa to attend the conference to present his point of view. The speaker of rosters did include former American Klan leader David Duke, French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson and Australian denier Frederick Toben.

The Tehran conference was roundly condemned worldwide. The European Union's top justice official described the conference as "an unacceptable affront" to victims of the World War II genocide. British Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced it as "shocking beyond belief." French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called the conference "quite simply not acceptable.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country repudiated it "with all our strength. . . ."We absolutely reject this. Germany will never accept this and will act against it with all the means that we have." The last statement is particularly important, since it came from the nation most responsible for the Holocaust.

VII. Which way is best?

Proponents of vigorous prosecution of neo-Nazis, racist and Holocaust deniers argue that such laws and their strict enforcement is necessary to prevent the reemergence of Nazism, which, in a repeat of the events in pre-war Germany, is particularly attractive to individuals living in countries where unemployment and social dissatisfaction is high. Transitional societies are particularly vulnerable, and the post-Communist societies face the most acute problems. For example, even though 20 million Soviets perished during World War II following the Nazi invasion of 1941, neo-Nazi groups are rampant in today’s Russia and especially attractive to the disaffected youth.

Referring both to denial of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, Hilda Tchoboian, president of the European Armenian Federation, explained that "the hydra of denial is a tumor on freedom of expression."

Supporters of Holocaust denial laws also contend that these laws are necessary more than ever as the number of Holocaust survivors, eyewitnesses to the events, dwindles and the events recede into history. As a result, supporters contend, denial of the Holocaust is growing and such views are becoming more mainstream. Such supporters even argue for expansion of such laws to criminalize trans-border dissemination through the Internet, since the reach of Holocaust denier message in the current era of globalization has increased exponentially.

Opponents argue that such laws are incompatible with a democratic society. The hallmark of a true democracy, they argue, is not just protection of speech one agrees with but speech is which most hateful and despicable.

Like proponents, those opposed to such laws also make use of the slippery slope argument by contenting that criminal prosecution of Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis and other racists can lead to prosecution of more benign activities and speech. Armenian-American student activist Garin K. Hovannisian, in direct response to Hilda Tchoboian’s statement above, argues:

Genocide denial might be a tumor on truth, memory, or even human dignity, but it's not even a pimple on the freedom of expression. It's an exercise - however false or disgusting - of that freedom,. . .A government that has the power to punish lies also has the power to punish truth (consider Turkey's law that punishes those who denigrate "Turkishness") and, really, to punish anything it pleases.

Some critics oppose such laws on practical grounds, arguing that prosecution of such individuals gives them a forum to disseminate their vile views and, since such trials are covered by the media, tons of free publicity.

For example, in the aftermath of his 1985 conviction in Canada, Zundel appeared for sentencing in black-face (indicating that white men could not receive justice in Canada), and carrying a cross, also inscribed with a "Freedom of Speech" motto. At a well-covered news conference, Zundel noted that the trial “cost me $40,000 in lost work -- but I got $1 million worth of publicity for my cause. It was well worth it."

Deborah Lipstadt, in reaction the jailing of David Irving in Austria, explained that even though she abhors Irving’s message, she is opposed to his imprisonment since it makes him, in some eyes, a hero of free speech and a martyr to fellow deniers.

Ultimately, such laws must be examined in their context. In the United States, the display of Nazi symbols may not need to be criminalized since the Holocaust did not take place on American soil. However, public display of a hate symbol exclusive to the United States – cross burning – can in certain instances be criminalized, according to a 2003 decision of the U.S Supreme Court (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)), because of the potent symbol which a burning cross has played in the persecution of African-Americans since the end of the American Civil War and abolition of slavery.

---

Professor Michael Bazyler is a leading authority on the use of American and European courts to redress genocide and other historical wrongs.

Bazyler is the author of the book Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (New York University Press, 2003, soft cover 2005), contributor of chapters to various books on genocide and the law, and the co-editor with Roger Alford of Holocaust Restitution: Perspectives on the Litigation and Its Legacy.

Read full text......