my present fustration

There are double standards in Europe's freedom of expression --What! Really!?

02.03.2006 | By Imran Khan

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - On February 20th an Austrian court sentenced

British historian David Irving to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust.

He made that denial in 1989 in two speeches given in Austria.

Although he says he has changed his views since then, the court was not convinced

with the judge saying "the court did not consider the defendant to have genuinely

changed his mind."

This decision clearly shows that in Europe there are limitations to the right to

express absolutely everything and that freedom of expression does not mean

being allowed to say anything you want.

But why are there double standards in Europe? All of Europe was quick to jump to

the conclusion that it was not wrong to publish the blasphemous cartoons of the

Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), while millions of Muslims around the

world considered it an insult to their religion and are still protesting it.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, has repeatedly refused to

apologize for the publication of the cartoons insisting that the government has no

control over the media and that freedom of expression is fundamental in Denmark.

To show solidarity and in the name of freedom of expression, many European

newspapers, including Austrian papers, also published those caricatures.

The question now is whether Mr Rasmussen and those newspapers will show the

same courage by criticizing the Austrian court verdict? After all, it is also a case of

freedom of speech.

David Irving may be wrong to deny the holocaust, but according to Europe's

standards of free press, why is he being made to go to jail for saying this?

Essentially it seems to mean that you have to be aware about saying anything against

the holocaust because you will get punished but you may say anything about on other

issues in the name of freedom of the press.

Some people say that this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but is associated

with history. If someone is trying to change history, then it is a crime and must be punished

as Mr Irving is being now.

But if we compare this argument with the cartoon row over Prophet Mohammed, it does not make sense. He is an historical figure and the Prophet of Islam. He was not a cruel person and her never ordered the killing of innocent persons.

If someone links wrong actions to him, is this not changing history or realities? Islam was not born in recent days but is a religion which is more than 1,400 years old. So if the holocaust

was a historical event, then every prophet is also a part of history and made history.

If denial of history is a crime, it must be associated with all historical events.

To avoid confrontation with other religions, Europe must have standards to judge the freedom of expression and to judge where there is a limit.

If it is the case that freedom of expression in Europe has boundaries, then these must not only

be applied in the case of the holocaust. The widening gap between Islam and Europe could be filled with equality and justice and I am sure things are not so bad that we can say that we are on the verge of a clash of civilizations.

How has one race accumulated so much control over what our opinions should be?

When something bad happens to us we try to forget about it, because it brings bad memories or feelings from the time.
That is what I find strange about the Jews and the holocaust.
Why do keep bringing it up, why do they want to keep reminding us?
They won’t let us forget. The holocaust has gotten so much for them, it has, I believe, benefited Israelis more than it has disadvantaged them.

They have gotten the world's sympathy. And now they using it to do the same thing to the palestinians that they accuse the Nazis of, -killing innocent people.

And the world doesnt care.