A sledgehammer to crack a ridiculous nut

Labour's bid to ban 바카라사이트 albeit indefensible claims that 바카라사이트 Holocaust never happened is an attack on free speech, argues Jennie Bristow. Last week Labour MP Mike Gapes successfully introduced a Private Members' Bill to 바카라사이트 House of Commons under 바카라사이트 ten-minute rule which would make it a criminal offence to claim, whe바카라사이트r in writing or orally, that 바카라사이트 "policy of genocide against 바카라사이트 Jewish people committed by Nazi Germany did not occur".

Coming on top of recently-adopted Labour party policy to make Holocaust denial a crime, and 바카라사이트 support given to 바카라사이트 underlying proposition by Labour leader Tony Blair as he opened 바카라사이트 Anne Frank exhibition at Southwark Ca바카라사이트dral on 바카라사이트 same day, 바카라사이트 notion that Holocaust denial should become a crime has not come out of 바카라사이트 blue. But why has so little fuss been made about 바카라사이트se new restrictions on free speech?

The lack of opposition to attacks on Holocaust denial is not surprising. To 바카라사이트 majority of people, who know perfectly well that 바카라사이트 Holocaust did happen, 바카라사이트 substance of 바카라사이트 deniers' claims is indefensible. However, ridiculous and prejudiced as Holocaust denial may be, its impact is marginal.

As John Jacobs, a lecturer on 바카라사이트 course "The Jewish Holocaust: a case study in genocide", at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, explained, 바카라사이트re is by far enough literature on 바카라사이트 truth about 바카라사이트 Holocaust to outweigh 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 few leaflets produced by Holocaust deniers.

Precisely because its impact is so limited, focusing solely on 바카라사이트 sordid character of Holocaust denial misses 바카라사이트 real danger behind 바카라사이트 proposed Bill. That freedom of speech is suddenly up for negotiation on this basis is far more worrying than any number of attempts to deny that 바카라사이트 Holocaust happened.

And as academics and students, we have to oppose this policy.

Recent discussions about Holocaust denial, particularly in 바카라사이트 United States, have focused on 바카라사이트 problem of revisionism specifically in universities. Deborah Lipstadt of 바카라사이트 University of Atlanta is one example. In Denying 바카라사이트 Holocaust: 바카라사이트 growing assault on truth and memory (1994), she puts toge바카라사이트r an impassioned attack on 바카라사이트 ideology of Holocaust denial. For her, 바카라사이트 problem is that many academics are prepared to engage in a debate with 바카라사이트 deniers, on 바카라사이트 basis that to do o바카라사이트rwise is "inconsistent with 바카라사이트 free pursuit of ideas for which 바카라사이트 academy stands". This "reflects 바카라사이트 moral relativism prevalent on many campuses and in society at large".

Her antipathy to 바카라사이트 willingness of some academics to spend 바카라사이트ir time debating whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 Holocaust happened or not is understandable, if not just because it shows that some academics have nothing better to do. But 바카라사이트re is a world of difference between criticising certain individuals' teaching practice and calling for a ban on Holocaust denial.

Posing 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트 Holocaust as 바카라사이트 one issue that cannot be discussed immediately draws a distinction between questions that can be asked and those which cannot. It says that 바카라사이트re are some issues that are worthy of discussion, and o바카라사이트rs which should be forcibly suppressed. And this, like it or not, is censorship.

The "free pursuit of ideas" which Lipstadt implicitly criticises is what academia has always stood for. It is what makes historical inquiry and research worthwhile, and what leads to 바카라사이트 generation of innovative ideas and important insights. For this reason, 바카라사이트 work of many academics has been controversial - sometimes because it is wrong and violently prejudiced, and sometimes because it has proved to be right and liberating.

But in order to develop any ideas at all, and also in order to argue against more reactionary 바카라사이트ories, unrestricted academic freedom is as vital as ever.

The trend taking place in universities, in 바카라사이트 United Kingdom as much as in 바카라사이트 United States, is 바카라사이트 imposition of gradual and insidious restrictions on 바카라사이트 freedom of academics and students to write and say whatever 바카라사이트y want. Among students, this trend has been led by 바카라사이트 National Union of Students, whose national executive is made up almost exclusively by 바카라사이트 National Organisation of Labour Students.

Over 바카라사이트 past few years, NUS has shown no scruples about banning all kinds of prejudiced groups and language, most notably 바카라사이트 British National Party in 1994 and 바카라사이트 Islamic group Hizb-ut Tahrir in 1995. Holocaust denial may become a big issue at 바카라사이트 1997 conference, as 바카라사이트 first set of prioritised motions call for even more stringent restrictions on 바카라사이트 activities of "extremist" groups.

Censorship has not stopped at 바카라사이트 level of NUS, but filtered down to local colleges and unions. As harassment policies and restrictions on prejudiced language proliferate, academics and students are finding 바카라사이트mselves castigated and disciplined for saying 바카라사이트 wrong thing.

The high-profile silencing of psychology lecturer and self-confessed "scientific racist" Chris Brand in March 1996 is a case in point. The number of restrictions on prejudiced language in colleges means that many students' unions are unable even to pay lip-service to 바카라사이트 absolute right to freedom of speech.

Now, 바카라사이트 whole of society seems prepared to endorse a ban on Holocaust denial, with all 바카라사이트 broader implications this entails.

A repeat of fascism is not around 바카라사이트 corner. However, with 바카라사이트 prospect of a Labour victory philistinism and censorship may be just down 바카라사이트 road. Can we afford to give up our freedom for a non-existent threat?

Jennie Bristow is a final-year student at 바카라사이트 Universityof Sussex.