The limits of free speech

A fractional loss of liberty is a small price to pay compared to what can follow if the far right is shielded all the way into power

The recent electoral success of the far-right parties in Austria and the detention of the alleged Holocaust denier Gerald Töben in Britain together raise some awkward questions. How should liberal, democratic societies deal with those who espouse antisemitism and racism, who deny the systematic mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis, and who pour vitriol on Muslims and gay people?

Despite decades of "Holocaust education" and the building of Holocaust memorials, 29% of Austrian voters cast their ballot for the heirs and admirers of National Socialism. Although the Austrian government is a member of an intergovernmental taskforce dedicated to promoting memory of the Holocaust and its grim lessons worldwide, at home it cannot even convince its own population to stay away from the suit-wearing inheritors of Hitler's toxic ideology.

And notwithstanding the metastasisation of antisemitism on the web and state promotion of Holocaust denial, most openly and notoriously by Iran, there are many people in this country who denounce the process that will enable Germany to extradite and prosecute Töben. They argue that Britain has a reputation for freedom of speech and has long given asylum to those persecuted for their views. Britain, therefore, should be a haven for such as him even though his utterances are despicable.

Something is going wrong here. First, "Holocaust education" is bouncing off the far right. Although its advocates claimed that it would help to blunt racism in general and encourage acceptance of difference, it seems that to the target audience not all difference is the same. It has become common for extreme rightwingers to malign Islam or Gypsies, while at the same time averring philo-semitism. The new mayor of Rome is a case in point.

Second, liberal society's abhorrence of neo-Nazi ideology commingles with a frisson of pleasure, not to say envy, at their naughtiness, taboo-breaking, and defiance of conventional wisdom. At one extreme the defenders of what was once unacceptable come from the swollen ranks of those attracted to "counterknowledge", the internet bred and fed millions who believe anything generated by the "establishment" must be a half truth or a lie.

What links these two phenomena is the insidious claim that there is a "Holocaust industry" and that everything from historical research to raising "Holocaust awareness" is a ramp to benefit Jewish interests and Israel.

Then there are those who deplore Islamophobia, antisemitism, racism and homophobia who simultaneously defend the right of creative figures, and logically anyone else, to cause offence. It would be nice to call this a "principled" stand but it is precisely the lack of any aesthetic principle by which creativity can be judged that has reduced the benchmark of appreciation to breaking taboos and upsetting people.

These attitudes create a penumbra in which Töben and his ilk can operate with impunity. Or not. Because the German authorities see things differently and now have the legal mechanisms to act even if a person alleged to have broken their laws is on UK territory. Yet his case has triggered alarm calls here from those who argue that democracy and tolerance are robust enough not to need laws for their defence. But how would it look if the far right in the UK started taking 5 or 10 or 20% of the vote in local and national elections? If they took power at some level?

In countries with a memory of how fragile democracy can be, the fractional loss of liberty entailed in penalising the expression of neo-Nazi views or Holocaust denial seems a small price to pay compared to what can follow if the far right is shielded all the way into power. By contrast we in Britain tend to take the robustness of our democracy for granted. We forget that for much of the last century, democracy was a rare and vulnerable species of political culture, easily rendered extinct. The plight of democracy in most post-communist countries ought to be a reminder that not so much has changed in that respect.

With a global recession on the horizon, possibly bringing with it mass unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and cuts in government budgets for welfare, who would like to bank on democracy staying in robust good health? In a few years time, the extradition of Töben might look like a smart move if it sends a message to the far right in Austria, not to mention our own breed, that continues here

Above David Cesarani, he's not biased at all is he?

Related Posts by Categories