***** CHOMSKY: My own view is that there are no reasonable grounds to doubt the existence of gas chambers. Of course, this is a question of fact, not religious faith. Only a religious fanatic would deny that questions of fact are subject to inquiry.
QUESTION: If you haven't had the opportunity to examine the substance of the record, what is the reason?
CHOMSKY: My reasons are the same as those of the vast majority of others who have also not done so. The claim that there were no gas chambers seems to me highly implausible, and the denial of the holocaust, completely so. Like virtually everyone else who has written about this affair or who has not, I see no need to investigate further. It has been alleged (e.g., by Vidal-Naquet) that it is "scandalous" to defend Faurisson's right to freedom of expression without denouncing his conclusions -- which would, of course, require careful analysis of his documentation, etc. By these curious standards, I have often been engaged in "scandalous" behavior. I have frequently signed petitions -- in fact, gone to far greater lengths -- on behalf of East European dissidents whose views I either do not know, or do know and find horrendous: supporters of current American atrocities, for example. I never mention their views in this context, even if I am familiar with them, a fact that no doubt scandalizes the commissars. The demand that defense of civil rights requires an analysis and commentary on the views expressed would simply eliminate the defense of the rights of those who express unpopular or horrendous views, the usual case where a serious issue arises. This is taken for granted without comment by all civil libertarians. In discussing this issue, I have therefore limited myself to stating that Faurisson's views are diametrically opposed to mine, as indicated in the comments I quoted earlier and others like them. In the case of East European dissidents, for example, I do not even go that far, nor is it necessary to do so.
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3761/8110.html> *****
When Chomsky wrote of Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc., he generally included obligatory denunciations of Hussein, Milosevic, Serbian atrocities, Stalinists, etc., presumably to prevent confusion as to where exactly he stands politically. Why did he find it unnecessary to do the same in the case of Faurisson, East European dissidents, etc.? Isn't it a better political judgment to defend Faurisson's right to freedom of expression & other civil liberties while denouncing or ridiculing his conclusions than to defend it without doing so? At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to use such political caution & clarification. So as not to "play into the hands of the Right" (= "my statement was not written as a preface to the book, which I did not know existed, and that I asked to have it withdrawn, though too late to affect publication a few weeks after I wrote it")? :-)
Or will we all enjoy freedom from constant demands for obligatory denunciations from now on?
Yoshie