Editorial
The
sentencing of the British historian David Irving to
three years imprisonment for making a statement some
17 years ago in Austria that there were no gas chambers
and crematoria in the death camps of Poland must come
as a surprise to many, especially the younger generation.
Some
might even ask what's the big deal? Older persons
however will no doubt recall the last days of the
last war and the early post-war years and the newsreels
and newspapers of the day, as well as the several
dispassionate historical accounts. That anyone, particularly
a historian, might even suggest that this mass murder
of several million mainly Jewish people of different
nationalities, Gypsies and homosexuals did not actually
take place seems beyond belief or explanation.
But
as historians will note there are often different
interpretations of history, with some being very much
coloured by the personality of the interpreter. Indeed,
Mr Irving's peers have been extremely critical of
his work suggesting that his right wing convictions
have led to his version of the tragic events in Europe.
He actually unsuccessfully sued one of his critics
for libel. But Holocaust denial as a crime? Yes, we
must remember the role of both Germany and Austria
in the genocide of six million. It is their way of
remembering the racist genocide.
We
must count ourselves extremely fortunate in this country
where we seem to be able to control some of the worst
manifestations of negative human behaviour. Our libel
and defamation laws may be colonial relics but by
and large the daily print media generally act responsibly,
although libel suits are not unheard of. Many are
brought simply to gag the media and rarely come to
trial.
The
issue is not the same with some of our radio stations
where there is often discourse that is libellous of
others. Sometimes statements can be vitriolic and
hateful. In theory there are official measures that
may be taken to regulate offensive behaviour, such
as cancelling a transmission licence, but the media,
and many citizens, prefer media self-regulation. But
there is an issue that we must remember. Free speech
is one of the pillars of democracy. This is why our
Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. This
is why our parliamentarians are given almost absolute
freedom to speak their minds.
But
as many have suggested freedom is not an absolute
freedom and must always be tempered by concern for
the effects of what one says on others who may have
different views or perceptions, be they of different
religions or ethnicities, or indeed political affiliation.
Perhaps we too might learn from that seemingly remote
human tragedy as we grow as a nation.
The
Trinidad
Express
is one of Trinidad most read newspaper.
Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
Note: This commentary was published by Trinidad
Express, on Thursday,
March 2nd 2006.
Petroleumworld reprint this article in the interest
of our readers.
All comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against the opinion
expressed in the comment as an endorsement of
Petroleumworld. All comments expressed are private
comments and do not necessary reflect the view
of this website. All comments are posted and
published without liability to Petroleumworld.
Petroleumworld
encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast
Petroleumworld Editorial articles provided that any
such reproduction identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com
and it is done within the fair use as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com
are appreciated.
Petroleumworld
03 05 06
Copyright
© 2006
Trinidad
Express.
All rights reserved
