Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Might contain a grain of historical truth
might in any case get people to think about why do they know what they already think they know
How do I know that I know this, except that I've always been taught this and never heard anything else?
It's always worth establishing first principle
It's always worth saying what would you do if you met a "Flat Earth Society" member?
Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round?
Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it's supposed to be true.
Here's someone who says there's no such thing; it's all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views?
Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think
you're bound to be "OK", because you're in the safely moral majority.
One of the proudest moments of my life, that's to say
in the recent past, has been defending the British historian David Irving
who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential
of uttering an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil.
He didn't actually say anything in Austria
He wasn't even accused of saying anything
He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law
that says only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean republic
The republic that gave us Kurt Waldheim as Secretary General of the United Nations
a man wanted in several countries for war crimes
You know the country that has Jorge Haider the leader of its own fascist party
in the cabinet that sent David Irving to jail
You know the two things that have made Austria famous and given it its reputation by any chance?
Just while I've got you. I hope there are some Austrians here to be upset by it
Well, a pity if not, but
the two great achievements of Austria are to have convinced the world that Hitler was German
and that Beethoven was Viennese
Now to this proud record they can add, they have the courage finally to face their past and lock up a British historian
who has committed no crime except that of thought in writing. And that's a scandal
I can't find a seconder usually when I propose this but I don't care
I don't need a seconder
My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus
any majority, anywhere, any place, any time
And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number
get in line, and kiss my ***
Now, I don't know how many of you, don't feel you're grown up enough to decide for yourselves
and think you need to be protected from David Irving's edition of the "Goebbels Diaries" for example
out of which I learned more about the Third Reich than I had from studying Hugh Trevor-Roper
and A. J. B. Taylor combined when I was at Oxford
But for those of you who do, I'd recommend another short course of revision
Go again and see not just the film and the play but read the text of Robert Bolt's wonderful play
"A Man For All Seasons" - some of you most have seen it
Where Sir Thomas Moore decides that he would rather die than lie or betray his faith
And one moment Moore is arguing with the particularly vicious witch-hunting prosecutor
A servant of the king and a hungry and ambitious man
And Moore says to this man
"You'd break the law to punish the devil, wouldn't you?"
And the prosecutor, the witch-hunter, says, "Break it?" he said
"I'd cut down, I'd cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him!"
Moore says "Yes you would, wouldn't you?"
"And then when you would have cornered the devil and the devil would turn around to meet you, where would you run for protection?"
"All the laws of England having been cut down and flattened? Who would protect you then?"
Bear in mind, ladies and gentleman, that every time you violate or propose the violate the right to "free speech" of someone else
you in potentia you're making a rod for your own back
Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes is simply this:
Who's going to decide, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker?
Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent?
To whom would you give this job?
To whom you're going to award the task of being the censor?
Isn't a famous old story that the man who has to read all the ***
in order to decide what's fit to be passed and what is fit not to be, is the man most likely to become debauched?
Did you hear any speaker in the opposition to this motion, eloquent as one of them was...