Political rant. Rare occurrence in my diary, as I’ve learned that no matter how logical one may think, the political issues are always coloured based on the faith, place of living and personal experiences of History. However certain political issues do make one raise a brow, if not for the event itself, then for the chain reaction it may cause. Indeed we are best reacting to what is close to our own heart, making a world history a very individual affair.
Coming from the communist country, I do remember times when people would say “tsss, don’t say it – you’ll get to prison for that!” and I do remember history lessons when we’ve been taught about scientists – traitors who dared to question the official theories that were acceptable by the State. They all ended up in jail…or dead…a lesson that we’ve been learning: the only truth is the one imposed by those who are in charge. The very foundation of totalitarian regime. And Western “freedom of speech” was something we would never understand the concept.
Watching Europe boiling hot first over cartoons, then over historian with denial issues, I can’t help but feel a bit “like home”, when the only belief was the one the media wants you to have to serve the government’s purpose. Only in this case, I suspect, this would be more then just one given government’s purpose. There is much more under the disguise of current debates in Europe, then jailing a historian for making illegal statement. Is it just me or anybody else see how hatred being skilfully inflated by invisible “master” of the plot? First we insulted another religion, then instead of trying to calm down the fanatics, we gave them a reason to despise us for double standards.
I am also failing to see how sacrificing one man to the media would help people to understand history better. Surely all of us are sufficiently informed to decide for ourselves which version of events to believe, without fear of going to jail if we come to the “wrong” conclusion. Laws against denial are questionable, but every country has the rights to make any law they feel appropriate and has the right to impose them on anyone in their country. Making a public spectacle of it is dangerous and sends out the wrong signals. What makes the holocaust so special compared to other genocide? Is Denying African genocide’s illegal? What about those in Eastern Europe? Stalin was responsible for the death of larger numbers of people than those killed during the holocaust, yet some people still consider him a benefactor of humanity. Should they be jailed as well? Are these laws to protect the Allies historical ‘fact’ or to protect the Jewish religion? What about laws against racism, saying that mockery at someone’s skin colour is illegal but mockery at someone’s sacred belief is ok? To my personal opinion, it is only fair if no religion should be given protection against freedom of speech, all should be open to question. As well as no scientific theories should be protected on the ground that it supports the political views. How the science can ever find any right answers if there will be no wrong theories that needed to be proved wrong? How can holocaust research be taken seriously if historians can be jailed for coming to the wrong conclusions? By making a public case of punishment, they made him a martyr. Shouldn’t the truth be defended through open debate and critique? Isn’t THIS is the real freedom of speech?
It is also worrying that media seems to think one man expressing wrong views can change the right views of millions. I don’t believe his case is the first of this law applied in practice. Just someone decided now is the right time to make a big noise over it, surely they have their own evil reasons for it. And suddenly all of us came dancing to their tunes. I’ve seen related comment on the Internet. I found it to be the best one ever said:
“…I am a muslim and I believe that the holocaust happened. I also believe that it is wrong to make denial of that event illegal. I further believe that the cartoons published depicting muhammed were insensitive and offensive but that they were understandable in a non-muslim country. I believe that my faith is stronger than a few drawings and I believe that the memory of the suffering of over six million people is stronger than the opinion of one man…”
Coming from the communist country, I do remember times when people would say “tsss, don’t say it – you’ll get to prison for that!” and I do remember history lessons when we’ve been taught about scientists – traitors who dared to question the official theories that were acceptable by the State. They all ended up in jail…or dead…a lesson that we’ve been learning: the only truth is the one imposed by those who are in charge. The very foundation of totalitarian regime. And Western “freedom of speech” was something we would never understand the concept.
Watching Europe boiling hot first over cartoons, then over historian with denial issues, I can’t help but feel a bit “like home”, when the only belief was the one the media wants you to have to serve the government’s purpose. Only in this case, I suspect, this would be more then just one given government’s purpose. There is much more under the disguise of current debates in Europe, then jailing a historian for making illegal statement. Is it just me or anybody else see how hatred being skilfully inflated by invisible “master” of the plot? First we insulted another religion, then instead of trying to calm down the fanatics, we gave them a reason to despise us for double standards.
I am also failing to see how sacrificing one man to the media would help people to understand history better. Surely all of us are sufficiently informed to decide for ourselves which version of events to believe, without fear of going to jail if we come to the “wrong” conclusion. Laws against denial are questionable, but every country has the rights to make any law they feel appropriate and has the right to impose them on anyone in their country. Making a public spectacle of it is dangerous and sends out the wrong signals. What makes the holocaust so special compared to other genocide? Is Denying African genocide’s illegal? What about those in Eastern Europe? Stalin was responsible for the death of larger numbers of people than those killed during the holocaust, yet some people still consider him a benefactor of humanity. Should they be jailed as well? Are these laws to protect the Allies historical ‘fact’ or to protect the Jewish religion? What about laws against racism, saying that mockery at someone’s skin colour is illegal but mockery at someone’s sacred belief is ok? To my personal opinion, it is only fair if no religion should be given protection against freedom of speech, all should be open to question. As well as no scientific theories should be protected on the ground that it supports the political views. How the science can ever find any right answers if there will be no wrong theories that needed to be proved wrong? How can holocaust research be taken seriously if historians can be jailed for coming to the wrong conclusions? By making a public case of punishment, they made him a martyr. Shouldn’t the truth be defended through open debate and critique? Isn’t THIS is the real freedom of speech?
It is also worrying that media seems to think one man expressing wrong views can change the right views of millions. I don’t believe his case is the first of this law applied in practice. Just someone decided now is the right time to make a big noise over it, surely they have their own evil reasons for it. And suddenly all of us came dancing to their tunes. I’ve seen related comment on the Internet. I found it to be the best one ever said:
“…I am a muslim and I believe that the holocaust happened. I also believe that it is wrong to make denial of that event illegal. I further believe that the cartoons published depicting muhammed were insensitive and offensive but that they were understandable in a non-muslim country. I believe that my faith is stronger than a few drawings and I believe that the memory of the suffering of over six million people is stronger than the opinion of one man…”