Peter Singer
THE FREEDOM TO RIDICULE RELIGION AND DENY THE HOLOCAUST
Freedom
of speech is important, and it must include the freedom to say what
everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people take to
be offensive. Religion remains a major obstacle to basic reforms that
reduce unnecessary suffering. Think of issues like contraception,
abortion, the status of women in society, the use of embryos for
medical research, physician-assisted suicide, attitudes towards
homosexuality, and the treatment of animals. In each case, somewhere
in the world, religious beliefs have been a barrier to changes that
would make the world more sustainable, freer, and more humane. So,
we must preserve our freedom to deny the existence of God and to
criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as
reported in texts that billions of people regard as sacred. Since it
is sometimes necessary to use a little humor to prick the membrane of
sanctimonious piety that frequently surrounds religious teachings,
freedom of expression must include the freedom to ridicule as well. Yet,
the outcome of the publication of the Danish cartoons ridiculing
Muhammad was a tragedy. More than a hundred people died in Syria,
Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries
during the ensuing protests and riots. In hindsight, it would have
been wiser not to publish the cartoons. The benefits were not worth
the costs. But that judgment is, as I say, made with the benefit of
hindsight, and it is not intended as a criticism of the actual
decisions taken by the editors who published them and could not
reasonably be expected to foresee the consequences. To
restrict freedom of expression because we fear such consequences
would not be the right response. It would only provide an incentive
for those who do not want to see their views criticized to engage in
violent protests in future. Instead, we should forcefully defend the
right of newspaper editors to publish such cartoons, if they choose
to do so, and hope that respect for freedom of expression will
eventually spread to countries where it does not yet exist. Unfortunately,
even while the protests about the cartoons were still underway, a new
problem about convincing Muslims of the genuineness of our respect
for freedom of expression has arisen because of Austria's conviction
and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the existence of the
Holocaust. We cannot consistently hold that it should be a criminal
offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust and that cartoonists
have a right to mock religious figures. David Irving should be freed. Before
you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims
of the Holocaust or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should
tell you that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped
Austria in time, but my grandparents did not. All four of my
grandparents were deported to ghettos in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Two of them were sent to Lodz, in Poland, and then probably murdered
with carbon monoxide at the extermination camp at Chelmno. Another
one fell ill and died in the overcrowded and underfed ghetto at
Theresienstadt. My maternal grandmother was the only survivor. So,
I have no sympathy for David Irving's absurd denial of the
Holocaust-which, in his trial, he said was a mistake. I support
efforts to prevent any return to Nazism in Austria or anywhere else.
But how is the cause of truth served by prohibiting Holocaust denial?
If there are still people crazy enough to deny that the Holocaust
occurred, will they be persuaded by imprisoning some who express that
view? On the contrary, they will be more likely to think that views
people are being imprisoned for expressing cannot be refuted by
evidence and argument alone. In
the aftermath of World War II, when the Austrian republic was
struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as
a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress
Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a
democracy and a member of the European Union. Despite the occasional
resurgence of anti-immigrant and even racist views an occurrence that
is, lamentably, not limited to former Nazi nations, there is no
longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria. Austria
should repeal its law against Holocaust denial. Other European
nations with similar laws - for example, Germany, France, Italy, and
Poland - should do the same, while maintaining or strengthening their
efforts to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust
and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected. Laws
against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in
circumstances where that incitement is intended to, or can reasonably
be foreseen to, lead to violence or other criminal acts, are
different, and are compatible with the freedom to express any views
at all. Peter
Singer,
professor of bioethics at Princeton University, New Jersey, is the
author of, among other books, Pushing
Time Away: My Grandfather and the Tragedy of Jewish Vienna
|