EU in Denial
The European Union's new Racism and Xenophobia Directive should be part of English law before 2010. On the face of it, since it is difficult to condone racism or xenophobia, one might wonder whether there could possibly be anything to worry about in such a directive. In fact there is a great deal.
^ TOPKilling discussion
The legislation includes a ban on Holocaust denial which is far wider than those presently existing in Germany or Austria. It will also apply to recent conflicts in Africa and the Balkans. Apparently whether a particular event fell within the definition would be decided by a court in each case. Therefore the courts would decide what you could deny, and how far you are allowed to deny it. Moreover would do so with the outcome of a criminal case hanging upon the decision. So far from encouraging full and frank discussion, that would be more likely to kill it stone dead.
^ TOPConspiracy theories
I am against any form of Holocaust denial legislation. Whilst I can see why one would have had such legislation in Germany and Austria in the aftermath of World War II, I do not see the need for it today, certainly not here. In fact the impact will almost certainly be harmful. The best way to deal with nonsense is to argue against it, challenge it, expose it for what it is. Once you start refusing to allow something to be questioned at all, you are actually possibly suggesting that criticism might get somewhere. You are allowing conspiracy theories fresh life.
^ TOPEncouraging racism
I also suspect that this will encourage racism rather than destroy it. Last year a committee of Muslims, appointed by the government to advise it on extremism, advised the government that the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day should be abolished in favour of a National Genocide Memorial Day. Their reasoning was that there must be no signal that Jewish lives were worth more than Muslim lives lost in conflict. That advice (although I disagree with it) was undoubtedly meant to try and avoid extremism rather than encourage it. However, although the EU proposal would cover events in Bosnia, it would undoubtedly not cover other matters dear to Muslim hearts. This will fuel suggestion from less moderate quarters that there is some form of special treatment here.
^ TOPThe Holocaust
The Holocaust happened. It is indisputable, incomprehensible, unbelievably tragic, historical fact. (Anyone who has read previous pieces on this website will know that I have strong views on this topic but do not believe that those views are furthered by saying that anyone who disagrees with them should be guilty of a crime: it is better to meet any dispute and expose it than suppress discussion). Any challenge to it is readily capable of being refuted. No one should for a moment have the comfort of being able to suggest or imply that they would have much to say about the Holocaust were they not prevented from doing so. It would also be naive to assume that this will not mean that "behind closed doors" those with an agenda (extremists of various kinds) will fan the flames of extremism by pointing to the injustice of their being able to speak freely on this topic.
^ TOPStalin
However when it seeks to go beyond the Holocaust to a number of other events the law descends into fantasy land. Stalin clearly thought that it was appropriate to have an official history, deviation from which would be a crime. It is somewhat startling to find the EU, a body which is not itself democratic but which is a gathering together of democratic nations, seek to arrogate similar power to itself. Freedom of speech is supposed to be maintained by such a body, not suppressed. This is not just the first step down a slippery slope. It is a huge great leap down it.