Holocaust Denial (Hansard, 29 January 1997)

§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it a criminal offence to claim, whether in writing or orally, that the policy of genocide against the Jewish people committed by Nazi Germany did not occur. Sixty-four years ago tomorrow, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. In the following 12 years, Hitler's Nazi regime and his allies and supporters in the countries of Europe that it occupied set about a policy of exterminating the Jewish people, based upon Hitler's writings and ideological racial purity theories that he had outlined more than a decade previously.

After coming to power, Hitler moved quickly to implement his policies. Within a few months, a series of laws had been passed. The laws introduced between 1933 and 1938 led to confiscations and pogroms, and steps were taken to undermine the political, economic and civil rights of Jewish people in Germany. Those measures included action against many Christians of part Jewish origin. By the Nuremberg laws of 1935, Jews lost their citizenship, and they were forbidden to intermarry with other Germans.

During Kristallnacht between 9 and 10 November 1938—the night of broken glass—almost every synagogue in Germany was attacked and destroyed, as well as many other Jewish institutions and businesses. Thousands of Jewish people were imprisoned in concentration camps, their wealth was confiscated and huge punitive fines were imposed on them.

In 1939, by the time of the second world war, Jews were no longer allowed to be citizens, could not attend schools and were not able to practise their businesses or professions. They were not allowed to own land, to associate with a non-Jew, or to go to parks, libraries or museums, and were ordered to live in ghettos. By 1941, boys over 12 were conscripted into munition factories, all use of the telephone and public transportation systems was forbidden, and all Jews over the age of six were required to wear the yellow star of David badge.

Those facts are indisputable. The Nazis, as they occupied neighbouring countries, implemented their policies in those countries. Eventually, they decided to develop the policy of the so-called final solution, which meant the extermination of Jewish people throughout Europe. It has been estimated—it is difficult to give an exact figure—that up to 6 million people of Jewish origin or part Jewish origin were exterminated in that process.

More than 800,000 died in the ghettos: 600,000 in German-occupied eastern Europe; 100,000 in what used to be Czechoslovakia; and 100,000 in Romania and the Soviet Union. About 1,300,000 were killed by being shot in the open air. Up to 3 million people died in the camps—2,700,000 died in the death camps. A million people died at Auschwitz, three quarters of a million at Treblinka, more than half a million at Belzec, up to 200,000 at Sobibór, 150,000 at Kulmhof and 50,000 at Lublin. Others died in concentration camps elsewhere.

Following Hitler's defeat at the end of the war, when those facts, which were already partly known, came to general attention, there began a systematic campaign of disinformation, distortion and lying about the past by Nazi sympathisers and neo-Nazi groups.

371 Many countries have adopted laws against denial of the holocaust. Countries in Europe—including Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Lithuania—have such laws, but this country does not. Our current legislation is based on the Public Order Act 1986, under which incitement to racial hatred is an offence. People may refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Home Office and, ultimately, the Attorney-General for legislative consideration literature disseminated in schools which denies the holocaust, or says that Hitler did not know about it, that there were no gas chambers or concentration camps or that people died simply of starvation or as a result of allied bombing. Such a leaflet was distributed in Hemel Hempstead last year, and was referred to the Attorney-General; but we are told that, although material of that kind is offensive and untruthful, it is not insulting, and there are therefore no prosecutions on that basis involving holocaust denial material.

Survivors of the holocaust, relatives of those who died and many other people who believe in democracy and the defence of human rights throughout society find it unbelievable that such a loophole remains in our current legislation. It is time, by one means or another, either to enact a specific law to make it an offence to deny the holocaust, or to amend the existing law in the Public Order Act 1986 to make denial an offence.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made some welcome remarks this morning when he opened the Anne Frank exhibition in Southwark. He said that it was time for us to give serious consideration to such action. Moreover, since I gave notice of my intention to present my Bill, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Holocaust Educational Trust and many others have given their support. That suggests that my proposals have widespread backing. I hope that, before too long, we in this country will join others in Europe to work collectively against the neo-Nazis who operate internationally—who publish material in one country and disseminate it in another, and use loopholes in order to act without any concern for the effect of their actions on the public and the dangers that they pose for the future.

Some people may ask, "What about freedom of speech?" Our freedom of speech is already constrained by the legislation that I have mentioned, and in other ways. 372 There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech; it is a question of balance, and I believe that the balance must be adjusted so that we can deal with the problems more effectively. Some people will also say that the Bill is not necessary because we shall create martyrs, but what is the point of legislating against incitement to racial hatred unless we are prepared to enforce it rigorously against those who incite such hatred by peddling material of this kind?

Some people will say that we do not need a new law. I hope that hon. Members will demonstrate that we do.