>>
>>Scroll down to 1). "The treachery of the intelligentsia: A French
>>travesty -- October 1981; then to 2). "Free speech in a democratic
>>society -- response to criticism re: Faurisson affair.
>>
>>Read. Discuss.
>>
>>If this doesn't take, tell me and I'll get it here another way.
>>
>>DP
>
>***** 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
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com