By Chris Trotter*
Julius Streicher was convicted and executed at Nuremburg in 1946 for what would today be called “hate speech”. For many years Streicher had been the editor of Der Stürmer, the virulently anti semitic newspaper notorious for whipping-up hatred against Germany’s – and Europe’s – Jewish population. The judges at Nuremburg had drawn a direct causal link between the words and images printed in Der Stürmer and what we now call “The Holocaust” – the state-sanctioned and organised genocide of European Jewry. Words breed deeds, the judges said, and Streicher’s hateful words had contributed to the death of millions.
Such reasoning is, of course, made much easier when it is the deeds of the Nazis caught in the moral spotlight. When the effects of extremism are so unequivocally horrendous, a degree of carelessness in identifying its causes is all-too-easily overlooked and/or excused. With the images of the Nazi death camps seared into the consciousness of the Nuremburg judges, Streicher’s squalid provocations encountered a pronounced deficit of historical understanding. Between 1933 and 1945, the editor of Der Stürmer had indisputably got what he wanted. Surely, on the scaffold at Nuremburg, he got what he deserved?
The Nuremburg Trials have presented the world with such a clear moral template that they have become the go-to source for generations in search of a clear ethical steer on the conduct of those wielding state power. In the 1960s and 70s, opponents of the Vietnam War warned the conscript soldiers of the United States that when it came to war crimes and crimes against humanity the judgement of Nuremburg was very clear. The excuse, “I was just following orders” is unacceptable. There are some orders that no human-being worthy of the name should follow. Military discipline does not trump the fundamental moral precepts of a civilised society.
That the anti-vaccination occupiers of Parliament Grounds in February-March 2022 also reached for the moral absolutism of Nuremburg – not least its willingness to execute the guilty – should give us all pause. Certainly it should remind us that all human judgement is bounded by the historical events and prejudices within which it is exercised. Even the high-minded pronouncements of the Nuremburg Tribunal are capable of being twisted to ignoble – even evil – ends.
The question, therefore, becomes: Can the Nuremburg Tribunal’s willingness to execute Streicher for publishing hate speech serve as a moral rationale for giving the claim that “words breed deeds” the strongest possible legal expression in New Zealand? Perhaps fortunately, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has handed over this complex legal and ethical argument to the Law Commission. Even so, the consequences of a wrong call on the strength of the causal links between words and deeds is fraught with political risk.
Where should one start? In Streicher’s case, the anti semitic prejudices which fuelled his newspaper sales predated Der Stürmer by several centuries. Crediting Streicher alone with whipping-up hatred of the Jews in Germany is an historical absurdity. One might as readily put the Catholic Church in the dock for instigating the medieval “blood libel” against the Jews. The Nazis did not invent German antisemitism: but, by giving anti-Jewish prejudice the force of law, they made it compulsory. Without Adolf Hitler’s genocidal hatred of the Jews, Der Stürmer would never have amounted to anything more than a loathsome anti semitic rag. One among many.
Those seeking to make hate speech illegal are relying, increasingly, on the concept of “stochastic terrorism” to justify their plans for extensive political censorship. Stochastic, in this context, is best explained as the problem of identifying precisely which one of the ten thousand anti semitic readers of an incendiary online posting is going to borrow his brother’s rifle and walk into the nearest synagogue.
The promoters of hate speech laws argue that it is enough to know that those contributing to the creation of a climate of hatred and prejudice will, eventually, succeed in provoking a deadly political reaction. Although it is virtually impossible for the authorities to identify exactly which one of these ten thousand potential terrorists will pick up a gun, the statistical certainly remains that someday, someone will.
Better, therefore, to legally prohibit extremists from building-up the sort of highly-charged political atmosphere that can only be earthed by a bolt of terrorist lightning. No anti semitic literature, no anti semitic movies, no anti semitic blogs and – Hey Presto! – no antisemitism!
Quite apart from the immense cultural wounds such an approach would inflict – no Merchant of Venice – it is far from certain that such extensive censorship would be effective. The perpetrator of the Christchurch Mosque Massacre, for example, was inspired, in part, by the deeds of the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik. Does this mean that all news of such deadly attacks should be suppressed? Brenton Tarrant was also inspired by the medieval military struggle between Christendom and Islam in the Holy Land and Eastern Europe. Do those promoting hate speech laws also propose placing a ban on the reading of history?
The hate speech legislation packed off to the Law Commission by Prime Minister Chris Hipkins proposed to limit the extended protection of our human rights legislation to religious communities alone. This offered considerably less protection for “vulnerable groups” than had been promised in earlier recommendations, and yet, even when limited to religious belief, the potential for conflict remains high. The Bible and the Koran both contain passages that are, at least on their face, anti semitic. Should both holy books join Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice in the sin-bin?
The moral certainties reflected in the judgements of Nuremburg can still evoke a nostalgic response from those old enough to have grown up in their shadow. The Second World War was perceived (at least by its victors) as a Manichean struggle in which the Forces of Light had not only defeated the Forces of Darkness, but also, in the course of prosecuting those minions of evil who’d survived the War, spelled out with crystalline clarity the moral limits of political and military power. After the global exertions of the most destructive war in human history, the installation of a new moral order – the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the judgements of Nuremburg themselves – did not strike them as hubris, but as the very least that should be done to honour the millions who had fallen.
And yet, even as Julius Streicher was twisting at the end of a rope, his fellow defendant, Albert Speer, was being escorted to a comfortable prison cell, from which he would emerge 20 years later to burnish his growing reputation as the only “Good Nazi”. In the end, the thousands of Jewish and Russian slave labourers who died manufacturing the weapons which, as Hitler’s Armaments Minister, Speer had promised his Fuhrer, caused the Nuremburg judges less grief than Streicher’s hate-filled prose.
Truth is a hard goddess to like – and even more difficult to serve – but among all the other gods she stands alone for keeping her promise to humanity. “I cannot shield you from the pain that comes with me,” she told us, “but I am your only sure protection against those who would have you believe that happiness is ignorant, and that lies can set you free.”
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
38 Comments
I don't think there is any doubt that language and words can have power. But it is equally clear that it also needs the person behind them for them to have power. Often when the messenger is not favoured the words are ignored, irrespective of their message. But there is no doubt that words can inspire action. Also throughout history there are people of influence who have used words to inspire others to action, when they themselves had neither the courage nor the stomach to take that action themselves. The question is whether people should be held to account for the message of their words? In a modern world where technology provides a means to hide their identity, many use words to hurt and inspire actions against innocents. Real harm is often the out come. The child's poem "Stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is an effort to teach children perspective, but the truth is people are always seeking power and influence over others and many only seem to be able to achieve this by calling names and causing harm.
You are right words have power, so the ability to silence your opponents is a very powerful and tempting tool to use. I really believe people in power believe they are doing the right thing, even Hitler probably thought ridding the word of the of Jews, and homosexuals was a good thing. The difference is the people in power have, well by definition way more power than the people. For example the government has a much bigger advertising budget than most community organizations, also have the police and army to back them up if you disagree. If the government can't manage to convince the people then perhaps they are wrong.
We all think our opinions are right, so the leaders will always think that opposing opinions are bad for the nation. We need to trust that we as a democracy will choose the right thing, sure occasionally bad things happen because of people bad things people say, but I see that is a price we pay to have our say.
We as a nation are heading to a state where people are not tolerating other peoples opinions these laws only justify that lack of tolerance on both side. If you agree with the law then you can say see the law agrees with me. If you don't you can say they won't even let me speak, why should I listen to them.
Yes, repeat a lie or falsehood often enough and people start believing it, a factoid. The lies about the Jews have been repeated often throughout the centuries. I guess the Romans had to do that when they formed the first Christian church after murdering the central figure. But we need to learn from our histories. The problem is some are extremely clever about cloaking lies. As to "truth", that is a word that often denies definition. Scarfie's comment about being provable with evidence is also contestable as leave out pertinent evidence and the "truth" becomes something else. At the end of the day people do need to consider their message and how it may be interpreted.
I certainly understand the drive to legislate against ‘hate speech’. Defining it is the problem as always when it comes to imposing rules on any activity. You are often limited to the intellect and prevailing social conditions of the law writers and the time in which they are drafting any legislation. I think one of the most enduring protections against any form of hate speech and behaviour is a thorough grounding of agreed history for the populace coupled with a genuine attempt at equality in that society.
"agreed history"...?
Yep, that'll work...not. NZ can't even agree on our own.
Usually it's a question of sufficient time passing for adequate perspective - & then the academic revisionists will leap to judge the actions of the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish & short" past from the comfortably safe & secure present.
Speech is simply expressed thought. Putting limits on speech is therefore an attempt to put limits on thought. But that's impossible; one's thoughts are one's own. Moreover, when people feel unable to express their thoughts, they will still try the harder, but probably in secret (e.g. encrpyted, anonymous messaging apps). When you sweep something under the rug it festers and develops into something worse. Rather than prevent extremism, hate speech laws would accelerate it. They are a profoundly bad idea.
You're right, and it all starts to make much more sense once you accept that hate speech laws have nothing to do with hate speech, and everything to do with censorship. Not even politicians are daft enough to believe that sticking our fingers in our collective ears and going "nananana!" will solve anything.
Stumbling across a Jordan Peterson discussion on this at Oxford, I recall he made two points (of many) -
a) free speech has its limits; there are already well established common laws in place to protect you, e.g. incitement and libel
b) ultimately the least desirable person in a democracy i.e. one with dictatorial attributes, will ultimately become the arbiter of what is defined as 'hate speech' and therefore lead to dictatorship
Despite the high minded poetic language, the Nuremberg trials were a show trial to execute as much of the leadership as possible under some sort of legal-moral framework which exempted the Allies of their war crimes (Firebombing Hamburg, Dresden, the unnecessary atomic bombing of japan, the intentional starvation of the Bengalis, purposeful starvation of German POWs) and were used to set the narrative of the war to justify it at the end. The "allies" objective was to control the narrative before any revolutionary political movements could form.
The popular myth of WW2, propagated through documentaries and spoken lore, is increasingly disconnected from the academic study of the war, as the people who lived through the time pass on. Read Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin, which came out in 2021, or Hitler: a Biography by Brendan Simms. Both of these books, by university teaching academic historians essentially agree with the David Irving position.
The delusional use of the Nuremberg trials as a revenge fantasy by Anti-Vaxxer types is nothing more than a fantasy of cruel revenge by the weak against the strong. The vax mandate is over, but the hatred of disdainful elites for the proles and the desire of the neglected and abandoned proles to overthrow their elites will remain.
The reality is that the psychological conditioning and mental destruction of the Germans, the erasure of their past and the conditioning of self hatred which the Americans imposed upon Western Germany after WW2, is built upon the lies told at Nuremberg. It is self evident in how the Germans cower in fear of the American empire after the Americans blew up Nordstream 2 with no desire to represent its own interests.
You do not think the execution of those who tried to eliminate an entire culture of people through the use of gas chambers to be worthy of execution? Not to mention the travesties committed by the Nazis else where? While in hindsight it may be possible to challenge the trials and i don't doubt that they missed a few. But plenty escaped too (which was one of the reasons they denied the Red Cross access initially, they got caught out and were unprepared to cope with the huge numbers of prisoners). Curtis Le May admitted himself that the fire bombing of the German cities was likely a war crime. There is no doubt that a few allied leaders were not held to account for their actions.
The "unnecessary atomic bombing of Japan" - based on the evidence available at the time, the projected casualties from an invasion of the Japanese mainland was in excess of 500,000. A blockade to starve them into submission would have had similar casualties. The projected casualties from the bombs was much less. Indeed at 2010 the total casualties from the bombs and subsequent deaths still remained significantly less than what was possible.
It is easy to second guess from almost 100 years later with information not available at the time. There are many myths about the wars and you are perpetrating some of them. Another is that the true cause of the war wasn't Hitler and the Nazi's. It was in fact the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, imposed on Germany after WW1. If the economic destruction of Germany had not be allowed to occur, the Nazis would never have had the platform to get into power.
Boom! Von Metternich just dropped a truth bomb. I do think however that the Nuremberg code of medical ethics is relevant today. Mainstream opinion will look back on this some day and conclude that nobody should have been forced against their will to participate in that medical experiment.
Von M,
The reality is that the psychological conditioning and mental destruction of the Germans, the erasure of their past and the conditioning of self hatred which the Americans imposed upon Western Germany after WW2, is built upon the lies told at Nuremberg. It is self evident in how the Germans cower in fear of the American empire after the Americans blew up Nordstream 2 with no desire to represent its own interests.
You appear to be a reader, so I suggest you read Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh. "When war comes the first casualty is truth" is Hiram Johnson's actual words and all sides uses deception as part of their strategies. Were any crimes committed by the Allies during WW2? Of course, but that cannot be used to obscure the vast number of crimes-acts of genocide- perpetrated by Germany.
As evidenced by the above, mostly you just rant, somewhat incoherently. You have NO evidence that the US blew up the pipeline.
Much less than the Jews, Romany and others in the extermination camps.
What evidence is there that the CIA blew the pipe lines? Or anyone else for that matter? You're just picking a side and and deciding your assumptions amount to 'truth'. And calling anyone who disagrees with you an 'idiot' speaks more to your character and ability to think clearly than anyone else. My argument is there is no evidence any way, but in my opinion it fits with Putin's actions.
Are you familiar with the Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist Seymour Hersh's report on the topic? How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline. I regard the evidence as being so overwhelming that there can be only one reasonable conclusion. Anyone who seriously looks at the evidence, and the motivations of the actors involved and concludes that the US had nothing to do with it... well, yes I'd say they're either willfully ignorant, or they're an idiot.
I wasn't but having read the document, I have to say I agree with you.
It was interesting though, through most of the article Hersh is just telling a story not unlike a Tom Clancy plot, with little or no evidence to support it. But then he does provide it.
I think they were foolish. Cutting their nose off to spite their face. Very short sighted.
But calling someone an idiot because they don't agree with you is still an arrogant response that is unworthy. Better to understand why they don't agree.
I hope that the Law Commission recommends that Hate Speech laws be dumped once and for all. There are many quotes I could use, but one will do.
" If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear". George Orwell.
I am a member of the Free Speech Union and am happy to contribute financially to their work. The right to free speech cannot be absolute, but that is what we have a legal system for. If I promote that physical harm be done to someone based say on their religious beliefs, then the legal system can and should intervene. If however, I simply disparage someone on account of their race, sexuality or anything else, then however hurtful that be may, I should have the right to say it.
I just can't see it as anything other than a tool or big stick to bring out when the really extreme people pop up. And then proclaim that the government did something. Maybe in time to prevent an atrocity, maybe not. How can hate speech law ever succeed? What is it even trying to achieve?
On a slightly abstract example of why I can't see it succeeding (with an example of human behaviour) is consider that people have the power of life or death with a couple of pedals beneath their feet and a steering wheel between their hands. And it isn't words but their actions when using that power. The rules of the road are pretty simple, yet broken countless times a day by so many.
Hate speech law is in my opinion a lazy option by a government wanting to abdicate one of their responsibilities. Do as I say, not as I do.
Be kind. Unless there is a mob on the parliament grounds. In which case, they are not us.
Although it is virtually impossible for the authorities to identify exactly which one of these ten thousand potential terrorists will pick up a gun, the statistical certainly remains that someday, someone will.
And there lies the rub. When the numbers are big enough, the unlikely becomes possible by dent of numbers.
Take for example the number of people in the US who die every year from becoming tangled in the bedsheets (800-odd). Ridiculous it sounds, but actually only 1/4 of a 1000th of a percent of people (and most likely infants or the elderly).
The example is spurious, but I used it because it shows that anything can happen if the audience/population exposed to a certain condition (bedsheets accidentally around the neck or poisonous opinions) is large enough.
the problem with any law like this is that it seems good at the time. the problem is when the definitions of what is Hate speach get redefined so that dissenting opinion falls into the category.
look no further than what is happening in England. they have commented that context does not matter.
the only good thing is that I am old enough that the evils of these decisions will not really affect me. selfish maybe...
Brenton Tarrant is Australian and Anders Breivik is Norwegian - they massacred people. Both Australia and Norway legally suppress hate speech, which made the world safe from the hateful rhetoric of either person.
Our government in its infinite idiocy is now attempting to bring in the same sort of failed and useless laws here.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.