The phenomenon of historical denialism is frequently associated with individuals such as David Irving and his (in)famous legal battle with American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, masterfully portrayed in the movie 'Denial' (2016). Laws banning 'rehabilitation', 'denial', 'minimisation' or 'negationism' (to mention a few of the terms used to describe this phenomenon) have been introduced by the majority of European countries, though not in the UK, as well as others around the world and have prompted heated academic and political debate. The nature of these laws and their uneven implementation within Europe has led researchers and practitioners to question whether denial/negation of gross human rights violations (and, first and foremost, the Holocaust) can be regarded as an international crime, and, more broadly, whether courts are appropriate venues to address such wrongdoings. In this book Italian scholar Emanuela Fronza provides a comprehensive analysis of the origins of historical denialism as a criminal offence (Pt I) and of the practical hurdles associated with the actual prosecution of this offence in the courts of law (Pt II). Whilst the author carefully delineates the parameters of her research, it is inevitable that debates concerning historical denialism raise questions concerning the limits of freedom of speech in a digital world, yet these are only briefly addressed, as is the related question of whether it is appropriate to regulate content on social networks at all. The goal is to explore the use of criminal law as a means of protecting historical memory, and the criteria which can determine those historical memories which are worthy of protection. While the author does not deny the necessity of combating historical denialism (as well as other racist statements), she asserts that criminal law might not be the most appropriate method for doing so, and urges the reader to consider what the potential appropriate responses of a modern democratic society might be, where free speech is protected as a fundamental right. Fronza begins by contextualising academic and political discussions of denialism within the broader context of memory debates in Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the current status of this crime under international law. There is detailed analysis of the nascent EU approach towards denialism as provided for in the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA. She notes how the EU extended the original reach of the crime of denialism to include the negation of almost all other core international crimes. The author also takes the reader through the intricacies of the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) approach, that has evolved over the decades and currently, in almost all cases, involves 'the monopoly of Article 17 [i.e. ''abuse of rights''] over Article 10 [''freedom of speech''] ECHR' (65). Several well-known cases, such as Garaudy v France and Perinçek v Switzerland, are examined and the major dilemmas these decisions entail are highlighted. There then follows a comparison of the legislation an...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.