The Sun published this piece where the author wants to allow Holocaust deniers their rights in Europe. It immediately found its way into all the Nazi newsgroups as proof that Zundel, David were denied their rights. This idiot claims to know that deniers, like LePen, are a bunch of crypto-Nazis, and not only do they know that the Holocaust went down, they want to see another one and then deny that one ever occured too. But he fails to realize that Holocaust denial is allowed the next thing will be the existence of the Nazi Party.

Hillel Halkin is selling Jews out by sounding like the ACLU, in advocating that vicious neo-nazis and their Jew-Hating speeches should not be banned in Europe. The Jewish Defense Organization supports silencing neo-nazi Holocaust deniers both in Europe and here and we are publicly blasting Halkin’s appeasement line regarding the neo-nazis for what it is: nothing less than pure undiluted hypocrisy. How, after the existence of Auschwitz which was done by a group of Nazis who German Jews foolishly allowed to come to power then too after the abusing of “free speech.” The Nazis used free speech in Germany at the right moment to convince enough Germans to join them, legally vote the Nazi Party into power, and then impose the murder machine against our fellow Jews. There were Germans and even German Jews who in the 1920’s and early 30’s actually said that the Nazi Party should be allowed to talk. You can be sure these "civil liberties" types in Germany had second thoughts when they were carted off to the camps. Does Halkin forget what these neo-nazis in Europe have done to his fellow Jews in the recent past? Does Halkin try to block from his mind what these neo-nazis would do to him and his family if given the chance? We at JDO never forget what hardcore physical threat neo-nazis are right here, and they always start their modern day war against the Jew with mere words. As a Jew I once met named Alan Berg found out the hard way that is not where it ends. The neo-nazis machine-gunned this innocent Jewish radio show host to death, in his Denver Colorado driveway.

Let the facts speak for themselves, dangerous neo-nazi types are using speeches, and words to threaten Jews, even in the US where recently Jews have tasted recent murderous skinhead neo-nazi violence all of it inspired by the sick ramblings of various neo-nazi speech makers. The JDO Intelligence Unit has brought to my attention some actual flyers, speakers, and neo-nazis newspapers where the neo-nazis have actually called for the assassination of Jews and bombing synagogues as well as attacking other Jewish targets with bombs. The JDO says loud and clear Nazis Have No Rights and that free speech ends when bigotry begins. Even if Halkin forgets JDO remembers that the acorns of free speech for Nazis in 1920 and 30’s grew into the oak trees of Auschwitz. As JDO always says loud and clear “the fruits of freedom of speech for Nazis was Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen and Dachau.” Those like Halkin who advocate letting the Nazis go free in Europe or here to speak, JDO will always inform the Jewish community, those like the ACLU and Halkin helped pave the road to another Auschwitz. JDO says “6 Million Never Again!”

Yours Sincerely
Mordechai Levy
Jewish Defense Organization
National Director

February 14, 2006

Cartoons & Holocaust Deniers


February 14, 2006

Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.

I don't find myself agreeing with the prime minister of Iran about many things, but about one thing, I believe, he is right. It is inconsistent to claim, in the name of freedom of expression, that a Danish newspaper has the right to publish any cartoon of Muhammad that it wants and at the same time to have laws, as do at least seven Western countries, outlawing denial of the Holocaust.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has a point. Either freedom of expression exists as a general principle or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Muhammad cartoons should be bannable even in a democracy. If it does, denying the Holocaust should be permissible, especially in a democracy.

Holocaust denial, needless to say, is a form of anti-Semitism. No one but an anti-Semite - a very rabid one - would make the preposterous charge that the Jews invented the Holocaust, or wildly inflated the number of Jewish deaths in it, and then successfully fobbed off this fabrication on a gullible world. There is no such thing as "innocent" Holocaust denial. All Holocaust denial is vicious and bigoted.

But denying many things can be vicious and bigoted. If I were to say, for instance, that black slavery wasn't so bad because the slaves were well treated and lived better on southern plantations than they did in Africa, that would be vicious and anti-black. If I were to say that the Japanese deliberately exaggerated the loss of life in Hiroshima to win world sympathy, that would be vicious and anti-Japanese. If I were to say that the Bosnian Muslims supposedly slaughtered in Srebrenice were actually killed in battle with the Serbs, that would be vicious and anti-Muslim. Should there be a law against each of these things? Should there be a million laws for each of the million ways in which it is possible to vicious and bigoted?

But the Holocaust is different, goes the argument. What happened in it is so horrendous that denying it is not like denying anything else.

This strikes me as a very weak argument indeed. Yes, the Holocaust was the most horrendous atrocity committed in the history of humanity. But why shouldn't the second most horrendous atrocity, whatever that was, also be protected by law from would-be deniers? Why not the top ten? Why stop at one?

Moreover, Holocaust denial laws are not only unjustified infringements on freedom of speech, they're counter-productive. It is likely that Holocaust denial would never have grown as astoundingly as it has, to the point that the head of one of the largest, most populated, and most powerful Muslim states in the world has taken to repeatedly championing it in public, were it not for these laws.

This is so because these laws do two things. On the one hand, they encourage the claim that, if the Jews and their allies are so eager to make denial of the Holocaust a crime, they must have something to hide. One only has to consult some the Holocaust denial bloggers on the Internet to see what a popular line of reasoning this is. Why be afraid of a free discussion, they ask, if you believe the truth is on your side? It can only be because the Jews know the truth is against them that they're so afraid to have things aired openly.

Secondly, Holocaust denial laws provide a convenient excuse for the total nonsense that passes among Holocaust deniers for "historical research." Yes, they say, our case isn't airtight - but how do you expect us to build it when you don't allow us to publish or disseminate our findings? Stop harassing us and we'll show you what legitimate historians we are.

Nor, even if Holocaust denial laws are in some sense unique, can they be detached from the general atmosphere of political correctness in which they exist - an atmosphere that is unhealthy for the intelligent discussion of many other things. Although offending groups of people or making prejudiced remarks about them has little to recommend it in itself, the social taboos that now exist against anything that is definable as offensive or prejudiced, or that might possibly be construed as such, are in the long run far more damaging. They lead to self censorship and fear to speak out on a wide variety of issues, and are far more pernicious than open prohibitions like Holocaust denial laws.

We are now seeing the consequences of this perniciousness in the debate over the Muhammad cartoons. It is worrisome to anyone who cares about free speech to see how many people in Europe and the United States (including, according to polls, nearly a third of all Danes) think these cartoons should not have been published. After all, they hurt Muslims' feelings. Is that really what a modern, democratic society should want to happen in it?

No, it isn't - but not hurting Muslims' (or Jews', or Christians', or vegetarians') feelings should not be a supreme social value either. When ideas are expressed, feelings sometimes get hurt. To hear it said that "Zionism is racism" is as hurtful to me as a Jew as it is for a Muslim to hear it said that "Islam encourages terror," but if we are going to live in a world in which the possible relationship of Zionism to racism, or of Islam to terror, is a forbidden subject, we have given away our freedom to say what we think without even waiting for it to be taken.

As long as they're not openly inciting to anti-Jewish violence, people should be allowed to say what they want to about the Holocaust. We Jews are grown-ups and can take it. And only if we are and can are we entitled to tell Muslims that they should, too.