chapter 2 - Stiftung "Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft"

Otto Böhm
Menasse noted, the court concluded that Irving was a “racist, an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and a deliberate
falsifier of historical facts.” 36 Menasse closes her description of the Irving trial with a useful suggestion
for confronting the tension between freedom of expression and restraining that freedom in order to curtail
hate speech:
Many questions remain about the legal treatment of “Irving and company.’’ However, a diverse approach
would seem to offer more possibilities than a single, uniform solution. Banning Irving from
visiting Germany and Austria and disseminating his remarks there is a valid solution in light of the
weight and the obligations of history. Perhaps not forever, but for a long time to come. Letting him
preach his ideas and incite hatred in the United States, and then reap the punishment of civil society,
is perhaps the best solution of many bad ones. The British legal system that even made it possible for
Irving to “defend his honor” before the Queen’s court also provided a useful opportunity for education
and democratic debate. 37
The literature on human rights education and memorial work has not adequately discussed the tension between
the right to freedom of expression and the need to curtail that right. 38 However, there is widespread
skepticism among scholars and practitioners in the field about legal and punitive measures to limit freedom
of expression. In particular, many young people express skepticism about whether sterile legal arguments
do justice to the moral component of human rights issues. Nonetheless, the tension that I have discussed is
central to human rights and political education. Indeed, an appreciation and understanding of the law is also
an important pedagogical goal, particularly because right-wing extremists in these educational programs increasingly
legitimize their politics on the basis of freedom of expression, academic freedom and open debate.
Those who hope to counter the far-right with the principles and practice of “democracy in action” must also
engage with the issue of the human right to freedom of expression. And by the same token, those who analyze
the history of human rights as a response to National Socialism and incorporate this analysis into educational
work must consider the experiences of activists who work to eliminate right-wing extremism. Taking the tension
between freedom of expression and the desire to limit it into account would provide a better basis for
educational programs on human rights.
36 Eva Menasse, Der Holocaust vor Gericht: Der Prozess um David Irving (Berlin, 2000): see esp. 12, 157.
37 Ibid., 178.
38 See for example, Barbara Schäuble and Hanne Thoma, “Ergebnisse des europäischen Workshops ‘Antisemitismus – Eine Herausforderung für die
politische Bildungsarbeit’: Eine Dokumentation,” in Neue Judenfeindschaft?: Perspektiven für den pädagogischen Umgang mit dem globalisierten
Antisemitismus, eds. Fritz Bauer Institut and Jugendbegegnungsstätte Anne Frank (Frankfurt a.M., 2006): 233-244.
98
Stiftung EVZ
HUMAN RIGHTS AND HISTORY: A CHALLENGE FOR EDUCATION