Deborah Lipstadt was prosecuted by David Irving and had a famous legal win against him. So what was her reaction to his imprisonment for holocaust denial? Did she cheer? No. She has just published her reaction and it is much the same as mine. A few excerpts:
"The violence accompanying the publication of the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad have caused many Europeans to wonder whether those doing the protesting (and particularly those calling for the death of the cartoonists) understand the nature of democracy and free speech. Like many, I winced when other European papers republished them. But they had every right to do so. To jail someone for denying the Holocaust, while supporting the right of the cartoonists to lampoon other religions, smacks of a double standard.... would it not be more effective if they shunned and marginalized those who glorify Hitler or deny his wrongdoings, rather than banned them? I countered Irving's hate speech-for that is what it is-with honesty. In court we proved that every one of his claims was bunk.... Instead of looking to the law, let those with a fidelity to historical accuracy fight these liars and haters using facts and genuine research as their weapons."
Source
Flemming Rose Explains Why he Published the Cartoons
Flemming Rose was the Danish editor who first published the now famous Mohammed cartoons. I thought readers might be interested in a quick look at the reasons he is giving for doing so:
"I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter. At the end of September, a Danish stand-up comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran. This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship".
Source
So we are in the rather strange position where it is not governments limiting what we can do, write, draw or say but rather a hate-filled minority. Thank goodness someone had the guts to stand up to the thugs.
Coercion and Abortion
I am going to dip my toe into some very hot water here so please don't shoot me over this post. For a start, let me say that the very idea of abortion horrifies me. The deliberate murder of the totally innocent and defenceless is to me just about the greatest of crimes and I cannot for a moment comprehend the mentality of the doctors who do it. But I do NOT believe that we should TREAT it as a crime. We tried that once and it did not work. It just killed a lot of women as well as babies. What I think is that we should take a positive approach. We should do everything possible to encourage the mothers to have their babies -- including paying them if that is what it takes. And there are a few oddballs around who agree with me -- people like President George W. Bush, His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Australia now pays ALL mothers to have babies. And the Australian birthrate has shot up, funnily enough.
Anyway, that's just a preamble. It is this news item that is bothering me:
"Abortion pill RU486 will not be freely available to Australian women, despite this month's emotional Federal Parliament debate. Major pharmaceutical companies have informally advised their peak industry group, Medicines Australia, they have no intention of importing the drug. They have decided the move would be too costly and controversial.... Well-placed sources said the decision not to import RU486 was based on two factors. The first is that the market is limited and the elaborate approval process would not make commercial sense. But the second reason is more important. Pharmaceutical companies understand that their industry is not particularly well regarded by the community and they believe it is not worth stirring up a high-profile campaign against them by the pro-life movement".
Source
So although this issue has got nothing to do with free speech, the same principles as those affecting the Mohammed cartoons apply. People are refusing to do what they have a perfect legal right to do basically because they have been terrorized over it. As noted here, the main reason why hardly any of the U.S. print media reproduced the Mohammed cartoons was out of fear of Muslim attacks on them.
It is fairly unlikely that attacks on the drug companies would take physical form but it cannot be ruled out. Anti-abortionists have killed American abortion practitioners in the past. So, like the good libertarian I am, I deplore ALL attempts at coercion and am sad that we live in an era when it seems that small minorities can impose their will on the majority by terrorism.
Update:
Well, as I expected, that post brought down a hail of fire on my head from all sides. The topic is really far too big for a short post, basically. I hope to reply to all the emails I got but if I do not at least be assured that I have read them all.
