Faurisson scandal

The Faurisson Scandal is the name with which the events in which was involved in early known 1979 the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson (n. 1929), national French .

In 1979, Robert Faurisson (50), French university professor, wrote a book which concludes that the Nazis did not use gas chambers , nor attempted to carry out a genocide of the Jews (or any other group), and that the myth of the Gas chambers was ridden by Allied propaganda during and after the war in the Nuremberg trials. Groups Zionists profited financially from the post-war lies to benefit the creation of the state of Israel to the detriment of Germany and the Palestinian people .

After the appearance of the book, Faurisson was attacked by a multitude of students and, shortly thereafter, suspended from teaching duties at his university . The reason given was that the university did not have the means to guarantee its protection. Later it was processed by falsification of History . As a result of an interview on television , he was also found guilty of defamation and incitement to racial hatred, receiving a suspended sentence of three months, 21,000 francs (3.200 €) fine and the obligation to pay for the publication in the press and television result Judgment (this last part, too costly was suspended after an appeal).

Serge Thion , researcher at the time of CNRS (dismissed in 2000 by violation of laws on Holocaust denial), asked Noam Chomsky to sign a petition calling on the authorities to ensure security and the free exercise of their legal rights of Faurisson. The petition was signed by 500 foreign intellectuals, including Chomsky. The text of the petition mentioned Faurisson’s extensive historical research and its conclusions. In the latter case, the controversy came from the use of the word findings , which can mean “findings” but usually means only “conclusions”. The petition was interpreted by some as a defense of Faurisson’s views, as well as of his rights.

In 1980 , Serge Thion (n. 1942) wrote a book about the Faurisson scandal from the negationist point of view.

Chomsky Defense [ edit ]

In response to criticism by his signature on the petition, Chomsky wrote the essay comments on the basic right to freedom of expression , where he discusses the right to make and publish unpopular investigations. Also expressed in that trial did not find evidence of anti – Semitism in parts of the work of Faurisson that it reviewed. Chomsky writes:

“Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to my views and expressed in publications (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East , where I describe the Holocaust as the worst example of collective madness in the history of mankind ) . But it is basic that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not restricted to the points of view that one approves, and it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally dismissed or condemned that this right must be defended with Greater strength. It is easy to defend those who do not need defense or join a unanimous condemnation of the violation of civil rights committed by an enemy officer. ” [1]

Chomsky authorized the use of this essay for any purpose and the editor of Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume , used it as a preface to a book of this, without informing Chomsky, who, upon learning, asked not to use it in this way, But La Vieille Taupe was already printing it. Later, Chomsky commented that the only thing he regretted about this whole affair is that he asked to have his essay removed from the book.

In his article entitled “The Right to Say It” published in The Nation , Chomsky states:

“I find it scandalous that it is still necessary to discuss this two centuries after Voltaire defended the right to free expression of ideas he detested. By adopting a doctrine center of their murderers, it becomes a disservice to the memory of Holocaust victims. “

His argument separates the conceptual distinction between supporting the point of view of someone and defend your right to say it ‘ . Since the latest does not imply first, the sentence of censure can not be interpreted as supporting the view of censored.

Review of Werner Cohn a Chomsky

Werner Cohn published in 1985 (with a repeat ten years later, which would add some more data) exlusivamente a book dedicated to affirm and justify that Chomsky was anti – Semitic and also its relations with the French neo – Nazis went far beyond Faurisson.

The first accusation is based primarily on the argument of double standards, that is, focusing on the guilt of Jews ignoring or minimizing what other actors in the conflict may have. Cohen explains that in the book the fatal triangle , of Chomsky, dedicated largely to the history of the conflict, he includes twelve references to Adolf Hitler , all aimed to compare some action of the Jews with the German dictator. On the other hand, Cohen says that once he was a great Mufti of Jerusalem during World War II, Amin al-Husayni , or his Arab Nationalist Movement, who openly declared their loyalty to Hitler and collaborated with him Third Reich .

As for the neo-Nazis, Cohn quotes a chapter from a book by Pierre Guillaume in which the author describes the relationship his denial movement has with the MIT linguist and goes beyond the signing of the petition in favor of Faurisson. Something that would not be more important if he had not sent the text to Chomsky himself before publishing it, which gave him the go ahead with a couple of touches that do not affect the substance of what reported by Guillaume. Since Chomsky maintains his ideological position to guarantee freedom of expression, even for the publication of theories in which it is not agreed.

As for the linguist’s argument about his commitment to freedom of expression, the Columbia professor recognizes that he has not been convinced either by the trial of Faurisson or by the persecution of neo-Nazis in Canada for the same reason. But it also offers examples of other cases in which, according to Cohn, Chomsky would not have been so compromised. Of note is that of Geoffrey Sampson, who gave a brief biographical account of the book Biographical Companion to Modern Thought in terms of praise for his work as a linguist, but which included a critique of his work as a political analyst. His review was excluded from the North American edition, and Sampson asserts that by pressure from Chomsky. This denies it, but in the same text in which it does it justifies the exclusion because it is a “work of consultation” and not a book.

In reading Cohn’s book, Chomsky claims that the accusations and evidence presented are fully fabricated and Chomsky himself offers data that would disprove them.