University shut in Holocaust row

[demoleft]

Source: BBC

An Italian university has closed down one of its campuses to prevent a planned lecture by a controversial French professor and Holocaust denier.

Robert Faurisson has been convicted five times in France for denying crimes against humanity.

He was due to speak at the University of Teramo in central Italy as part of a Masters course in Middle East studies.

Faurisson says that Nazi gas chambers are a fiction and that most of the Jews who were killed at the Auschwitz concentration camp died of natural causes.




Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6670745.stm

---

Just some miles from here where i live. My girlfriend was in town's Main Square (dedicated to anti-fascist martyrs!) when groups of people and students collected to boo and protest against the French professor.

Professor Moffa, who had organized the meeting with Faurisson, was forced to change the place for the event at least four times in a couple of hours. After they were rejected from two local hotels they were found near the main street of town where they got in collision with groups of people coming - according to Police - from Rome and well determined not to allow the meeting.

Police came quickly and both professors were taken to Rome. Faurisson is already probably home.

On one side the local right-wing politicians, who stated freedom of speech and democracy were not granted.
On the other the left-wing parties, the University head and Minister Mussi, to whom the meeting was meant only as provocation.

In the middle... Well, you can imagine the chaos in the quiet, sleepy daily life of a small city in my territory!

[bluerum]

1. After WWII people like him were put on trial for genocide. Or hung from

lamp posts.

[demoleft]

2. Yes.

Do you see the low level of so called "liberal" right wing parties here in Italy?
They even tried to mark a difference: he's not negationist, they say, he's revisionist...

My God, they didn't even know what they were talking about...

[Lurking Dem]

3. But in today's world

people like Chomsky write introductions to his books.

[struggle4progress]

6. Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression

Noam Chomsky
Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, October 11, 1980

... I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs ... Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson's "freedom of speech and expression." The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to "do everything possible to ensure the safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." I signed it without hesitation ... Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance ...

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm

[shenmue]

10. What does that have to do with it?

Why does he have to be allowed to say inaccurate things in a history class? Do you want a flat-Earther to teach geology, just because he can say it?

[struggle4progress]

14. My reply, to the immediately prior post, simply contained an excerpt

from the Chomsky preface the prior poster criticized: Chomsky states a preference for freedom of expression and so criticizes particular responses to the fact that the fellow in question had privately published some holocaust denial material. I hope that clearly answers your question What does that have to do with it?

As a historical matter, of course, Faurisson is demonstrably wrong on a number of points. He is, in fact, often so utterly wrong and so easily refuted that I have trouble deciding whether he is a shameless publicity seeker, an ideologically-motivated liar, or a crank.

But this still leaves the underlying issue of freedom of expression. It seems to be your view that people should not be permitted to make false statements.

A standard argument for freedom of expression, however, is confidence that in open discussion the truth has a fair chance of winning, and there must be some validity to that standard argument, because (for example) otherwise scientific progress would be impossible: matter accepted as "fact" at one time is not uncommonly revised or rejected at another.

To hold your view, that people should not be permitted to make false statements, you must expect that some authority will reliably determine, for all the rest of us, exactly what constitutes a false statement. But authorities typically silence their political enemies, rather than silencing liars. So those of us, whose views are not always popular and who consequently have some experience with official abuses of power, will not want to support this curious doctrine that people should not be permitted to make false statements.

A good student should be able to do more than to recite accurately whatever wisdom the teacher has imparted: the good student should be able to evaluate the quality of non-conventional claims. In my view, a good teacher might indeed expose students to some untrue claims, in order to teach some critical thinking skills .

[pschoeb]

16. He's not a historian, Robert Faurisson

was a literature professor at the University of Lyon, so he wasn't teaching anything about holocaust denial, that was merely for some of his letters to Le Monde, written outside the university, that he was removed from his position. So it would be like firing and English professor for writing a letter defending creationism on their own time. So I think I agree with Chomsky.

[demoleft]

15. A common ground for allowing free expression

You say: "that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of". Right.

A common ground is needed for mutual understanding. He refuses any.

To negate what a trial, books, documents, photos, videos, witnesses have proven true is only literally equal to express oneself freely. What's worth for? And for whom?

There's no possible dialogue with one who states "no" to anything humanly and scientifically known as "evidence". It's not even an act of communication: there's no common channel, no possible feedback.

The italian Prof who organized the meeting had invited a jewish counterpart, that refused to go. You must consider that the accident took place in an antifascist city with many streets dedicated to anti-nazi martyrs, in a Country whose Consitution forbids apology for Fascism.

On the other hand, Faurisson was not officially forbidden to climb upon a chair and make a speech aloud in a park or in some street.
Naturally, you have to take into account possible reactions when you touch "sensitive" subjects that some people may judge with "pain's" parameters, not with Voltaire's.

Though it is reported that people who tried to beat him had come from Rome well prepared, and targeted him, which is altogether unacceptable. I mean, it was not a local hot-blood popular reaction. It was planned.

[struggle4progress]

17. The thread begins to wander: an earlier poster sneered that Chomsky

had written a preface to one of Faurisson's books; I quoted from that preface, to exhibit the freedom of expression philosophy it expounded; another poster then replied that people ought not to be free to make untrue claims; in response to which I attempted to point out the difficulties with that particular approach.

I don't really disagree with much of what you say.

Of course, by now it has become entirely clear what sort of person Faurisson is -- because even if it were true that the majority of concentration camp inmates had died of infection or organ failure, associated with exposure and overwork and starvation, it nevertheless would require enormous cynicism to describe those as deaths from "natural causes" the way Faurisson does, casually passing over the complete loss of legal rights and property, the collection into ghettos, the one-way transportation into camps, the slave labor, the technology for mass incineration of corpses, and many other details that must inform our understanding of what happened.

Of course, it can be pointless to engage in discussion with people who pretend to engage in dialog but who seem to ignore all evidence contrary to their own stance. Of course, when a person makes ridiculous and ahistorical claims, refusal to debate the person is entirely understandable, as the debate itself tends to confer a certain credibility. And of course, decent people with ordinary regard for other people's feelings naturally try to treat painful subjects with some sensitivity.

Still, as my own views have frequently been minority views, I regard freedom of expression as fundamental to political change.

[panzerfaust]

20. Eisenhower, it is said

Buchenwald was the first German camp liberated by the Allies.

It WAS NOT an extermination camp, but it was a death camp none-the-less: Official German records admit/brag that at least 56,000 people died/were murdered there.

It is not clear if the camp was liberated by the (segregated, all-black) 761st Tank and 183rd Combat Engineer Battalions; or by the (segregated, all-white) 6th Armored Division.

In the current discussion, this is of not of paramount import.

What IS important is that there is no question that the US soldiers who first entered the camp became ill and vomited at the site of civilian bodies, truly stacked like cordwood: 10 high.

What is also important is that Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton ordered many units from the Third Army to have GIs file through the camp to witness the evidence of the unbelievable German atrocities.

Eisenhower is said to have done this because of his belief that if the GIs did not SEE the aftermath of the unimaginable horror with their own eyes, that someday, some people would come to disbelieve what had happened.

He wanted those who walked amidst the piles of starved bodies, the pits full of the battered corpses of men, of women, and of children to be able to testify to the savaged piles of dead humanity.


Deutschland über alles

Except for The Allies, as it developed.


Freedom of Speech. Yes.

Certainly I do not want a government deciding where to set up "Free Speech ZONES", as our current Fascist Administration has done.

Yet, as many have argued, how can an open society protect us from the *'s of this world?

[barb162]

7. Why would anyone want Chomsky to write an intro on anything

other than linguistics?

[shenmue]

11. Exactly

:applause:

Simply because someone has the freedom to say something, does not create an obligation by other people to pay them to say it. Nor does it make accurate the things they'd want to say. It's like saying free speech is an excuse for allowing someone teaching a math class to say "Two plus two equals seven."

This dumb-ass is hardly a human rights martyr.

[panzerfaust]

21. Perhaps because he is intelligent and articulate?

Not being a Marxist, I often find little common ground with him: But I always find that I must think about points he raises, even in his most intemperate writing.

This is, an ailing, democracy. One does not have to be a recognized expert on government in order to be permitted to comment.

Soon, it will be necessary and sufficient that all one will need is the RIGHT Opinion.

Chomsky is as welcome to address political issues as is anyone on the DU. Be that in speech or print.

[sutz12]

4. "In the end, all deaths can be attributed to heart failure"

I forget where this quote came from. I think it was a gangster book or flick, though. Essentially, even though I shot him in the head, he died because his heart stopped, therefore, I'm not to blame.

[PittPoliSci]

5. i hate stories like this

i really wish they'd just let these ridiculous fools embarass themselves in public and get it over with.

[Eurobabe]

23. Well, hey 3 CON candidates don't believe in Evolution

so what can we expect from an increasingly dumbed-down populace?

I live about 50km away from Dachau which I have yet to visit, it's too emotionally wrenching for me. I wigged out when we went to the Jewish Museum in Prague, there is a room with thousands and thousands of names etched in marble on the walls in at least 8 rooms. Plus the artwork of children who were in concentration camps. Who are these freaks that say this never happened?

And then you have the deniers of the Armenian slaughter in 1916, don't even get me started with that!!

[barb162]

8. It's too bad there are holocaust deniers still around. Flat Earth

Society groups are on the same level but far, far less dangerous.

[struggle4progress]

9. Many of Faurisson's claims are extremely easy to refute: it might have been ...

... more effective just to attend the SOB's lectures with material debunking his nonsense and to laugh him off the stage

[Quantess]

12. '...part of a Masters course in Middle East studies. "

Weird.

[krispos42]

13. "Natural causes"

Like, say, a 9 millimeter brain hemmorage?

Accidently falling into an incinerator?

Bulimia without the time-wasting 'binge eating' part first?

I'm thinking nasty things about him dying of natural causes.

[NorthernSpy]

18. I know! And what's "natural" about rounding people up and subjecting them to starvation...

... exposure, and disease in the first place?

If someone were to do that to the deniers, would they see anything "natural" in their rapidly approaching demise? Nope. I'm pretty sure they'd say that they were being deliberately murdered in slow motion.

[krispos42]

19. It's how they can still support BushCo

"Oh, come on, we didn't kill most of those 700,000 that died in Iraq! Other Iraqis did!"

Right.....

[Tyler Durden]

22. Just enough Freedom of Speech gets you David Duke....

...Not enough Freedom of Speech gets you Adolph Hitler.

[LeftishBrit]

24. What would concern me most ...

is that this is 'part of a Masters course in Middle East studies'. Does this mean that it's a course requirement for students to attend, or that Faurisson's views are being given academic respectability?

I realize that the freedom-of-speech issue is a dilemma: at what point does giving a platform to racist views become more of an evil than censorship? Not an easy answer. However, it's one thing to give someone freedom of speech; another to treat their views as part of respectable academic discussion - if this is indeed what is happening.

[demoleft]

25. Exactly...

...one of the key points of the matter. The dubious academic value of personal views devoided of scientific evidence was the reason why the invitation was judged provocative. It doesn't matter how popular one is: in science one must bring evidence.

If one can't, one can always write books and have a life.

As to freedom of speech: in Italy fascism is not Constitutional, it's outlawed. The part fascism played in the racial laws against jews (1939, if I remember well) threw Italy in the strategy of Hitler and his SS squads. Though not directly linked to the matter, the french Professor knows well Italy was invaded and occupied and knew the Nazi-fascist violence. Indeed - a perspective that may be strange to many - my country was fisically invaded and assaulted.

It's scars we bring in the heart and in the blood and many bring in their memory. My mother's family had soldiers at home, seeking my grand father (almost all men were captured after 1943).

The professor had better find another country to enjoy freedom to express his beastly arguments. :banghead:

ciao!