truth
A few months ago in the UK, there was a small media storm over a "Roman Catholic" bishop. He had been excommunicated years earlier and recently the Pope decided to usher him in from the cold. However in a TV interview he "denied the holocaust". This caused an uproar and he was ordered to repent for his comments which he refused and was then booted out.
On More4 News, they interviewed another Brit, David Irvine, a historian who was jailed a few years back in Austria for "denying the holocaust". They were very hostile towards him. Later they got a member from some Brittish Jewish council in, and he implied that denying the holocaust was an antisemetic act and an insightment to hatred and those doing it should be prosecuted under the associated laws.
This got me thinking. And before I begin, I want to lay down some rules for this thread. This is not a debate on the holocaust. I also want to be clear before I begin that I do not share the views of these 2 gentlemen. I was annoyed on 2 main counts.
1 - The label "Holocaust denier". The reporter who interviewed Irvine said a judge had called him a denier of the holocaust and he was villified for it. However, he did not deny the holocaust. He questioned the claim that around 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. He felt there was insufficient evidence to support these figures. He said he thought the holocaust did happen, just the scale of it was historically dubious.
2 - This ties in with gripe 1. The Catholic whom I mentioned echo'd these sentiments, adding that he did not believe there were any gas chambers. And obviously, he was villified as a holocaust denier and anti semite.
I believe these men were treated unfairly. Neither denied that the holocaust happened, but were labelled in a way which implied they did. I believe the media embarked on a campaign of moral bullying. I do not like the idea that certain events in history cannot be questioned and if you do, you are a <insert derogatory name> and will be villified.
Instead, they should have said "Ok, what is your evidence for this?", they should have been invited to backup their claims. Now, I have no reason to suspect the claim that 6 million jews were killed to be false, however I haven't actually seen any evidence for it, and take these claims on faith. I suspect most people acted in the same way. If someone is questioning the evidence, they should be invited to argue their case, not silenced and mislabelled.
I do not think, no matter how righteous the media get, that moral bullying, silencing a person and calling them all sorts of names because they feel some things cannot be questioned is a sad state of affairs. Questioning the numbers killed in the holocaust is not a blatently ignorant, nor stupid thing to do. It isn't the same as saying "whites are better than blacks", that is a blatently stupid thing to say, however this isn't and I think they should have been given a forum to debate and argue their cases.
When Irvine was interviewed, I felt he handled himself well. He stated that all he questioned was whether or not 6 million jews were killed and that he felt it was less, however the reporter duely acted like "yea wotever guv" and paid no heed to what he was saying. I found it appauling.
Of course, the holocaust is a very sensitive issue and arguably the worst atrocity in human history. However I do not think this justifies its status as unquestionable and all those who do are anti semetic and deniers, even if they don't actually deny it happened. It seems you must accept it as it is in the history books, or not at all. It seems you cannot accept it happened, but question the numbers, you cannot have it both ways and I am slightly worried about this.
So, is it fair to label someone who questions certain parts of the holocaust a "Holocaust denier"? and is it fair to hold it as an unquestionable atomic truth and villify and silence anyone who does question it, paying no regard for their reasons for doing so.
