Don't posture for me, Argentina

Apparently Argentina has kicked out a Catholic bishop who has questioned the scale of the mid-20th century European holocaust.

And all without any hint of irony.

I've no intention of defending Bishop Williamson, who by all accounts is a very arrogant man. But I have previously pointed out that the way to combat holocaust deniers is with facts and debate, not by trying to shut them up, lock them or hope they go away.

Instead, I'm animated by the pointless posturing of it all. Booting Williamson out of Argentina won't change his views or those of anyone else, I suspect.

And it's not as if Argentina was one of those countries adversely affected by that holocaust. If anything, it greatly benefited from immigration as a result.

And of course, we should not forget how Argentina was one of the foremost destinations for many Nazis who fled justice after World War II. In fact, it now seems clear that they came at the invitation of Juan Peron, who then employed many of them in his government.

But the most compelling reason why this is an utterly hypocritical stance for Argentina to take is the fact that they themselves had their own mass murder of citizens, during the military junta period.

The mothers of the disappeared still gather in Buenos Aires to ask what happened to their relatives and demand clarity and answers which they still don't get. Around 30,000 desparecidos still remain unaccounted for. And the vast majority of those guilty still walk free.

It's long past time that Argentina owned up to its own crimes against its own humanity, and quit this hypocritical posturing about a holocaust that happened long, long ago on a continent far, far away.

Let's all stop denying the holocaust

The Irish holocaust of the 1840s, that is.

Our gombeen government has decided, a mere 160 or so years on, to finally commemorate the fact that half of the country died of hunger or were forced to leave their homeland due to a deliberate policy of forced starvation.

They've decided to call this commemoration of the dead a 'Famine' memorial day. The commemoration is long overdue.

But it's not a famine we should be commemorating. Because there was no famine. A famine is when there is not sufficient food to feed the population. What happened in Ireland in the 1840s was attempted genocide.

Let's look at the evidence, and I don't mean the mounds of dead, some containing the remains of over 10,000 people, that dot our landscape. Nor do I mean the ghost towns of the West of Ireland. I mean the documentary evidence of genocide.

What is a genocide? In common terms, it is the attempt to murder an entire race of people. But the United Nations has a legal definition. In fact, it has an entire convention on genocide. The relevant part is section 2, which defines acts of genocide.

As a single reading of 2c reveals, what happened in Ireland in the 1840s was a genocide. This has been confirmed by international legal expert F.A. Boyle, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who wrote:

"Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People.... Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 [Hague] Genocide Convention."

But some people object to the suggestion that there was intent on the part of the British government of the time. They suggest that the famine was an act of God, of nature, a tragic accident caused by a fungus on a tuber which had nothing to do with any human action or intent. To demonstrate the intent of the British colonial administration of the time, it is important to look at their own stated documents on the matter.

Firstly, let's consider what Robert Murray, writing in his 1847 book "Ireland, Its Present Condition and Future Prospects" had to say about the alleged famine:

"The surplus population of Ireland have been trained precisely for those pursuits (unskilled labor or agricultural) which the unoccupied regions of North American require for their colonization. That surplus is an overwhelming incubus (demon) at home, whether to themselves or others. Remove them and you benefit them in a degree that cannot be estimated. Precisely as you do so, you raise the social condition of those who remain."

In other words, a policy of clearing Ireland of its 'surplus' of people and driving many of them to America would be of benefit to the American economy and to the easier administration of Ireland by Britain! Bear in mind this was written at the height of the horror - Black 47. This isn't some sort of 'Modest Proposal' type of joke. This is a genuine policy proposal.

But perhaps Murray did not represent mainstream British opinion? Let's consider instead the London Times, which crowed:

"They are going. They are going with a vengeance. Soon a Celt will be as rare in Ireland as a Red Indian on the streets of Manhattan...Law has ridden through, it has been taught with bayonets, and interpreted with ruin. Townships levelled to the ground, straggling columns of exiles, workhouses multiplied, and still crowded, express the determination of the Legislature to rescue Ireland from its slovenly old barbarism, and to plant there the institutions of this more civilized land."

In other words, the newspaper of record in England records with glee the imminent demise of the Irish as a nation in the hope that its land can be cleared for plantation by Britons. But again, perhaps it is unfair to attribute these mainstream British opinions to the government itself? Let's look at what they had to say.

On April 26th, 1849, one hundred years before the Genocide Convention was signed, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon, wrote to the then British Prime Minister, John Russell, expressing his feelings about the lack of aid from Parliament:

"I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination."

Bear in mind, this is the voice of Britain in Ireland speaking. And he is speaking of a policy of extermination of the Irish people. I call that genocide. But perhaps I'm wrong. So let's look around for other views. According to holocaust historian and expert Richard L. Rubenstein in his book "Age of Triage: Fear and Hope in an Overcrowded World":

"A government is as responsible for a genocidal policy when its officials accept mass death as a necessary cost of implementing their policies, as when they pursue genocide as an end in itself."

Rubenstein is the man who invented the term 'genocide', so I think we can defer to his definition of the word. So it seems absolutely indisputable: under the terms of the UN convention on genocide, Britain was guilty of conducting genocide on the Irish people during the period variously and incorrectly referred to today as the great famine or An Gorta Mor.

Now, I'm not interested in a Brit-bashing exercise. I can't imagine that the British of today would in anyway feel guilty (nor should they) for something committed by an elite that ran their country and ours a century and a half ago. Britain is historically responsible for a number of attempted genocides, at least one committed on their own soil (the Highland clearances.)

Indeed, the 'great hunger' was not the only attempt at genocide on the Irish people. Cromwell's exploits two centuries earlier spring to mind. I can't imagine that it would ruin relations with Britain or indeed the British people if we were simply to pay proper tribute to our own dead.

In fact, I think many British people might find it illuminating to know what really happened. Certainly, given how the 'famine' is taught in our schools, I believe it would be illuminating for a lot of Irish people too. I accept the British apology for what Tony Blair's word is worth. Which is little, in fairness, but I accept it anyway. But that's not the point.

The point is that our own government fails to acknowledge that it was a holocaust, not a famine caused by a lack of available food. The Irish holocaust had little in common with famine or hunger. Should the focus of Jewish holocaust commemorations be on preventing gas poisoning?

What would any self-respecting Jewish person say if people expected them to euphemise away the horror their people suffered, or suggested that they get over it and grow up as a people? The Rwandans and Armenians would not accept anyone else trying to diminish the attempted genocides that happened to their peoples. So why do we accept it?

Sure, some Shinners might want to use the designation of any commemoration for some Brit-bashing. But that in no way invalidates the core point, which is nothing to do with the Brits of today. It's to do with our own acknowledgment of our own history in accurate terminology.

When we can do that, then we can really move on as a nation.

David Irving: Postscript

I spent this morning driving to County Down to pick up a very expensive bottle of whiskey from two lovely older gay gentlemen, then delivering it to Skinner Senior.

This was justifiable for two reasons - firstly, because you don't come across Old Comber Whiskey very often these days, and secondly because you can't beat driving through South Down on a Sunday morning for that sense of emulating a car advert (winding country roads, all but empty, surrounded by lush green fields and all bathed in glorious sunshine.)

What wasn't justifiable was the lunacy I ended up subjecting myself to on Newstalk radio while driving.

Karen Coleman - the former RTE hack that George Dubya hated - has a current affairs round-up show which is normally pretty good.

What let her down was her sudden loss of journalistic objectivity when David Irving (above), the historian associated with denying the commonly accepted scale of the Holocaust, appeared as a guest on her show.

Now, in the week that Irving (not for the first time) was denied a platform to speak in Ireland by people who think issuing death threats against others is a defence of civilised values and free speech, for Coleman to get him live on air was a bit of a coup.

Teaming him up with his long-term critic, Deborah Lipstadt was a second stroke of potential broadcasting genius.

So what went wrong? Well, Coleman lost sight of her journalistic objectivity, and rather than quizzing Irving hard on his beliefs, asking for him to support his controversial assertions and conclusions about the Second World War, instead she simply sided with Lipstadt, who one would have thought was well able to defend herself against Irving, having won a libel action he took against her.

In short, the presenter tag-teamed her guest with another guest whose sole reason for being on the show was to refute, ridicule and condemn the guest who was actually newsworthy.

That's not good journalism, and Coleman is experienced enough to know much better.

But in another sense, one can't blame Coleman for doing what she did. Any broadcaster who could even be (mis)interpreted as sympathising with someone like Irving runs the risk of being tarred themselves as a holocaust denier, a fellow traveller with fascists and far-right nutters. It's career suicide for a mainstream broadcaster like Coleman. And she's too experienced not to know that.

But once again, I was left pondering the irony of how people who defend their actions in terms of freedom of speech are happy to stifle the voices of those whom they find offensive.

Lipstadt refused to debate Irving directly, which is her decision. But one would have thought that the best way to refute his conclusions is to present him with contradictory evidence.

She also accused him of being a would-be censor for taking a libel action against her book, wherein she accused Irving of being a holocaust denier. As Irving pointed out, seeking to injunct the book would have been an attempt to silence, whereas permitting publication then suing for libel to preserve your reputation was not.

But Lipstadt is entitled to her position, as she earned it in court. On the other hand, Irving has also earned his right in court to present his historical analysis. His conviction and incarceration in Austria on charges of denying the holocaust is one of the great stains on the Voltairian tradition of freedom of speech in Europe.

Of course, those who protest David Irving's speaking engagements, just like the BBC when they dubbed Sinn Fein spokesmen, argue that with freedom of speech comes responsibilities, and that no absolute right to free speech exists (known commonly as the 'Don't shout FIRE! in a crowded cinema for no reason' rule).

However, the irony here is that this is simply fascism with another face. Deny anyone free speech, and you become the jackboot, the oppressor.

The way to deal with Irving is with facts. Cold, hard, irrefutable facts. Not with inane questions like 'Do you agree that the Nazis were evil?' And certainly not the way Lipstadt, a woman qualified to discuss the known facts of the Second World War, did, by simply dismissing everything Irving said as 'silly' without bothering to present evidence refuting it.

For the record, since Irving did not get to speak in Ireland, he does not deny the holocaust. He queries the accepted facts of it and the scale of it. He believes it happened primarily on the Eastern front, and without Hitler's knowledge or approval.

This may well be a profoundly silly position for a historian to assume. If so, then all it requires is refutation. Lipstadt could and should have spoken directly to Irving and cited documents to prove him the liar she claims he is.

But more importantly, Carol Coleman should have assumed the critical perspective of journalism she knows well, by quizzing Irving closely on his beliefs without permitting her own evident distaste to colour and distort the interview.

What came across on radio was exactly what Irving wants - the sound of an elderly patrician gentleman speaking quietly in reasonable tones while being ambushed by two women competing in shrillness.

Anyone with an Armenian background, anyone from Rwanda older than fourteen, anyone with a Roma background, anyone familiar with the mid-century history of European homosexuality has already got good reason to query the consensus explanation of the holocaust as a solely Jewish tragedy that is somehow elevated above all other historical events of suffering.

There have been other holocausts, and more than Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Irving cleverly uses these self-evident facts to gain leverage against the monolithic sacrosanct concept of The Holocaust as a unique event that solely hurt Jews. Arabs in particular feel that this interpretation is often used as justification for the Zionist state.

Now, there's no doubt Irving is dubious. His association with Neo-Nazis betrays his true sympathies and casts a shadow over his position as a historian of the Nazi era. He has been refuted factually in relation to his Dresden death tolls, and the reasons for the destruction of convoy PQ-17.

On the other hand, he was instrumental in uncovering the truth of the Hitler diary forgeries, and has repeatedly been praised, albeit with reservations, by other historians who patently do not share his political sympathies. He has also been the target of dirty tricks and silencing tactics by the far-left for over 40 years. That lineage continued this week in Cork, with death threats issuing against Irving over the internet from far left sources.

It seems to me that dealing with Irving's work requires careful sifting of his evidence, and conscious consideration of his political sympathies when examining his conclusions. But permitting Irving to present himself, accurately, as someone who does not get a fair hearing only opens the door wider for people to consider his views more seriously and much less critically.

If people wished genuinely to discredit Irving and deny his ideas a platform, they ought to simply disprove them with supporting evidence. That would shut him up for good. But it's not that simple. A lot of David Irving's work has worth. It's perfectly possible to examine it and come to objective conclusions based on facts. Wikipedia managed it. Why couldn't Karen Coleman?

Calling him a holocaust denier when he doesn't deny that the holocaust occurred merely erodes the credibility of those who say so. Locking him up in Austria as a holocaust denier merely made a martyr of the man.

Irving says the holocaust happened differently to the consensus understanding of the event. That's his interpretation as a historian. And it should be refuted as such, with historically verifiable and irrefutable data and evidence, not with childish namecalling that merely adds substance to Irving's line that he is the ongoing victim of censorship.

Calling him silly is not a refutation of his argument. And without factual refutation, it will only gain in influence.

There's more than one holocaust being denied

I've been thinking all week about the Iranian conference on the holocaust, and all sorts of things are disturbing me about it.

Obviously, there are the initial concerns about holocaust denial in general. Western media coverage has been vociferous in its condemnation of the motley crew of white supremacists, rogue rabbis, neo-Nazis and other dubious types who gathered in Tehran to 're-examine' the holocaust.

I share the concern that so many varied interests would seek to deny the mass murder of millions of people. It is certainly deeply worrying to see so many bizarre fellow travellers gathered together with the intention of casting doubt on the historical veracity of the holocaust.

But there are plenty of other things to get concerned about in relation to this conference. The first would be the erosion of the concept of journalistic objectivity. When BBC correspondents happily say that one must 'take sides' when reporting a story, I get very worried about whether even good old Auntie Beeb can be relied upon to provide objective reportage rather than propaganda anymore.

The result of this lack of objective reporting is that we in the West fail to either understand why this conference was convened, nor what it's ultimate purpose is.

In one sense, it is a knee-jerk response to the 'freedom of speech' defence offered by Danish newspapers and others after they published derogatory cartoons about the prophet Muhammed which were deeply offensive to Muslims worldwide.

And in that regard, one is forced to ask, in what way has the West's adherence to the Holocaust come to resemble an article of religious faith? We have laws in countries like France and Austria that send people to jail for questioning the holocaust, just as we once had laws on heresy.

Whether these laws genuinely impact upon the ability of historians to examine World War Two is debatable, but there is no doubt that they act as a genuine infringement upon the concept of freedom of speech.

Then there is the issue close to Iranian President Ahmedinejad's heart - the formation of Israel in Palestine following World War Two. Like so many Muslims, especially his Arab neighbours, Ahmedinejad is outraged by the continuing atrocity committed on the Palestinian people by the Jewish state.

His analysis traces the formation of the state of Israel to European guilt at how the Jewish population of Europe was treated during the 1930s and 1940s, and he has asked in the past why a Jewish homeland could not have been created in Europe instead of on Palestinian lands following the war.

And that, unlike querying the historical veracity of the holocaust, is a fair question to ask. But the West's continuing Holocaust guilt ensures blind loyalty to the Zionist state, so that our media tends to ignore or seek to justify Israeli atrocities committed against the people whose homes, lands and lives they stole and continue to steal.

There is little doubt that the Iranian President would wish to see the eradication of the state of Israel. He has said as much in the past. But despite how Israel and their US supporters would like to spin it, this is not the same as calling for a second holocaust. Basically, Ahmedinejad's position is that the Jewish homeland should not be located on land stolen from others.

The whole issue of holocaust denial is more complex than many in the West realise. Thanks to continued Israeli and general Jewish insistence that there was only one holocaust (usually with a capital H for added effect), we are generally left in ignorance about other genocides which were equally horrific, such as the Turkish holocaust against its Armenian minority which inspired the Nazis, or indeed the Naqba which Zionists perpetrated upon the Palestinian people.

Intriguingly, the official Israeli position in relation to the Armenian holocaust is that it didn't happen. Why is this their position? Because secular Turkey is one of their few friends in the entire region, and because Turkey itself still has laws to lock up people like this year's Nobel laureate in literature Orhan Pamuk for 'defaming Turkey', when they highlight this atrocity in Turkey's history.

So Israel itself is happy to deny a holocaust despite posters about it littering every wall in the Armenian quarter of the old city of Jerusalem. But they aren't very happy when the holocaust which led to the foundation of their own state is queried in Iran.

To my mind, the coverage this Tehran conference has received is deeply suspect and disingenuous. The howling headlines in usually sober British broadsheets must be seen in the context of George Bush and Tony Blair's phoney war with Iran, as well as the erosion of impartial reporting.

Blair is off to Turkey at the moment, in an attempt to patch up relations which have gone frosty as the EU backs away from Turkish accession. Will this great warrior against holocaust denial raise the issue of the Armenians with his hosts? Of course not.

And while George Bush seeks to make a case for the invasion of Iran due to a potential nuclear weapons capacity, a case as spurious as the one made against Saddam's Iraq, will he also invade Israel, after Ehud Olmert admitted accidentally to his country's nuclear capacity? Of course not.

We are utterly right to condemn those who would seek to deny the deaths of six million people in the last century in Nazi death camps. They are inhumanly wrong.

But if we cannot understand the reasons that underpin the hosting of this conference, we will inevitably find ourselves watching from the sidelines as America and Britain jihad across the entire Muslim world in order to placate Israel's unending imperialist quest for an Eretz-Israel cleared of its indigenous population and surrounded by weak or occupied Arab states.