Holocaust denial, and social breakdown

DK makes many good points about the EU's proposal to outlaw holocaust denial or trivialization. There's one point I'd add.
It's that, in principle, there are already stiff sanctions against holocaust denial even in countries where it is formally legal. Holocaust deniers are shunned and reviled by all decent people; just look at the fate of David Irving.
Society, then, already punishes holocaust denial. Which raises the question - why does the EU think formal legal punishments necessary?
One possibility is that society is breaking down, so social pressures are no longer sufficient.
The other is that the EU just doesn't see civil society, but instead believes there are just isolated individuals who relate only to the power of the state.
Which of these possibilities is most worrying?

Comments

[dearieme]

I trust that it will be illegal to deny the slaughter of Protestants in Ireland in 1641.

[Mark Wadsworth]

The second explanation is the correct one and hence the more worrying.

[james C]

'Which of these possibilities is most worrying?'

I doubt whether either of them have anything to do with what the EU is attempting to do, which is to impose German and French laws on the other countries. There may, of course, be another agenda, which is to make it harder for Turkey to join the EU, because of that country's laws that forbid any mention of the destruction of the Armenians.

[Mr Eugenides]

The Armenian Genocide is not covered by these new regulations, James.

Would that it were.

[Amir]

I couldn't agree more.

Great post.

This quote does it for me:

"Which of these possibilities is most worrying?"

Both.

[Rob]

Aren't most of the countries which have Holocaust denial laws - France, Austria, and Germany are the ones I can think of off the top of my head - ones which had problems with relatively high levels of social acceptance of at least involvement in their various Nazi regimes? For example, I have this suspicion, which may be totally unfounded, that Austria had an ex-concentration camp guard as President in the eighties. If that's the case, though, in the states which currently have the law, maybe civil society was working quite as well as we'd like.

[Rob]

Oops. Obviously, that last sentence should read 'maybe civil society wasn't working quite...'

[Alex]

Rob: No, that is completely unfounded. Kurt Waldheim was a lieutenant on the staff of Army Group E headquarters.

Broadly: I can see a few other possibilities. The most convincing is that this is merely an eye-catching initiative impelled by PR motives.

[David Gillies]

It's an expression of the totalitarian nature of the Rechtsstaat. This goes beyond the negative liberty enshrined in Common Law to embody the notion that that which is not expressly permitted is prohibited. Hayek is very critical of this all-embracing legal leviathan in both The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty.

[pseudonymous]

I have to agree with Mark. And I do not look forward to a future in which casting doubt on anyones pet grievance is a thought crime.

[Dan Hardie]

It would have taken a bright A-level student a few minutes or even seconds' research to have established whether or not there was any truth to his 'suspicion, which may be totally unfounded, that Austria had an ex-concentration camp guard as President in the eighties.' So why can't a junior academic like Rob Jubb manage a little fact-checking?

[Mark Wadsworth]

Dan, the irony here is that Waldheim was Secretary General(?) of the UN for two terms before becoming president of Austria. It wasn't until then that the "international community" decided to ostracise him, idiots that they are.

As a matter of fact, Waldheim was an SS Intelligence officer, I believe in the Balkans, so probably pretty unsavoury but far from being a concentration camp (or worse, death camp) guard.

I thought that this was common knowledge?

Finally, why are you blogging at 4.36 in the morning?

[Dan Hardie]

Hi Mark- belated answer but:
Yes, I knew all this about Waldheim, and I know a number of things abt him that you don't mention in your comment. Which is why I was saying 'why didn't Rob Jubb, allegedly a soft-subject academic, do some research before posting his comment?' Do try to actually read comments before posting replies.

'Why are you blogging at 4.36 in the morning?' I was actually blogging at 11.36 in the morning, since I was in Singapore: don't make assumptions, silly man.

[Rob]

Dan, because typing 'which may be totally unfounded', thus giving away the lack of proper research and indicating that it would be unwise to put to much weight on what was after all described as a suspicion, was quicker.

[Cleanthes]

i.e. Rob, that your comment was utterly worthless. What was the point of posting it then?

[Marge Alley]

WHO'S BEHIND 'HATE' LAWS ?

To find out, Yahoo "The Earliest 'Hate' Criminals." (It is still legal in America to read it.) Marge