Fixing history by law

Hello Yishai,

The other day at the green tie dinner we could not discuss about the theme of CHR, which I think is quite interesting (before we spoke in the dinner I had in mind asking you whether you had a favourable opinion regarding to these kind of laws).

I presume that it is not necessary to tell you that I am totally against all kinds of arbitrary discrimination based in race or religion, and much more when it consists in barbaric acts like the ones of genocide against the Jews. Nonetheless, that is something totally different than to think that it is good to have a law that criminalizes expressions regarding the existence or not of that disgraceful historical fact.

We shall agree that what is banned is not a hate speech, but only an interpretation of the history. If the speech is a hate speech it is understandable to ban it.
As I said in class, I think that it is madness to affirm that the Holocaust did not exist. Nevertheless, fixing history or science by law is something that repulses me, because official stories (whether true or not), can set a grave over research. Perhaps in this case the history that is being fixed is very clear, but it could be the first step in fixing more historic facts.

Another problem is that it can give rise to huge arbitrariness, specially in this globalized world, like what happened to an Australian that made denial expressions in the internet, and was arrested in England after a German warrant, as I read yesterday in the Times (I don't think he never expected that, and that goes against the "nulla poena sine lege...").

Another huge problem is that these criminal laws are set only by majorities in congress, what it is not difficult to find. This would be very complicated, especially in populist governments that want to interpret history in their own way.

I have said too much, so I'd rather ask you some questions:
-What is the guarantee of freedom of expression for, if it is not for protecting persons that want to say something different than what is normally accepted?
-Would it be correct to prohibit the complete denial of the Holocaust or also the accepted figures or some other important fact?
-Shouldn't criminal laws be the "ultima ratio"?
-Wouldn't it perhaps have the contrary effect someday (a lot or people that without these laws would consider historians like Irwing just mad people, now pity them)?
-Wouldn't it be similar to ban expressions in favor of communist parties... and with much more reason the communist party itself?

I like these discussions by mail, because for me it is more difficult to be articulate in spoken English.

See you on Saturday.
Shalom,
Álvaro