by Carol Noble

Created on: May 03, 2007   Last Updated: May 14, 2007

For me, the important point is not the idea of Holocaust Denial, but that a law could be created which is so worded that it is impossible to repeal it, even if concrete evidence came to the fore later which undeniably required a repeal. The Holocaust laws in Germany, Austria, and Canada, indicate such a law is in existence.

All law is made based on evidence of the time. Many people believe that the Haolocaust happened, in every aspect, the way the official version states. Others, rightly or wrongly, question at least some of the "facts" regarding this emotive event but are being prevented from presenting evidence, or even debating the event by asking questions and seeking further proof.

In Germany, where Ernst Zundel was recently tried, his lawyer was forced to stop representing Zundel in court, and has since been threatened with similar thought crimes. No defense lawyer can defend unless they are allowed to explore possibilities, even if they seem irrational, or horrific to the rest of the court and public. Everyone should be allowed to defend themselves in court. So why was Zundel's lawyer dismissed from his case? Could it be that there was some evidence that would have proved Zundel was right? I don't know what evidence this was, or what point would have been made; this was denied to everyone to learn.

As for David Irving, he defended himself in many of his run-ins with the courts because he felt no lawyer could understand or present his view accurately. He may have been wrong on this but that was his prerogative.

No, what worries me more on this issue is where does the legalisation of "thought crime" stop?

No-one can ever tell everything there is to learn about a specific event in history. If a person dies, then their view can never be given unless they had written something just before their death which described their view. Some of the historic facts we now accept as being the true version of event have been proved to be either erroneous, distorted or suppressed. Only by producing evidence, and being prepared to ask questions, can these "errors" in historical fact be recognised and after review, if necessary, amended. This is the democratic, professional way of looking at history. Only those who have something to hide will seek ways of deflecting the truth from the public gaze.

I personally have proof that one piece of the Holocaust story - the numbers who died in the camps - is not truly known or understood. Because it is a crime to publicly state any small

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>