[PEN-L:717] Chomsky and Faurrisson

[Aditya Chakrabortty <aditya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The best article I ever read on Chomsky's preface for the Faurisson volume is here:

http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/other/85-hitchens.html

An excellent piece which shows Christopher Hitchens at his best.

-----Original Message-----
Sent:	Wednesday, October 28, 1998 4:59 PM
To:	'pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject:	[PEN-L:714] Bounced message

> From: Mike <toilecon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> " When Chomsky makes a gaffe, he never acknowledges
> it. His stubborn pride would be the only explanation for refusing to admit
> his error in judgment in writing the preface to a book by holocaust denier
> Faurisson. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he came up with
> grotesque arguments about the need to defend free speech."
>
> Pure marxist authoritarian rhetoric:
> To defend free speech is a grotesque argument ?
> Saying that is more than grotesque, it`s dangerous
> Mr. Proyect is the one that is wrong
> I presume he rejects Chomsky - and with him, all his ideas -
> because Chomsky doesn`t agree with authoritarian marxism principles.
>
>
> Mike
>
> Here`s the counter argument coming from Chomsky himself where
> he defends free speech
>
>                                   Noam Chomsky
>                             The Nation, February 28, 1981
>
> An article in the New York Times concerning my involvement in the
> "Faurisson
> affair" was headlined
> "French Storm in a Demitasse." If the intent was to imply that these
> events do
> not even merit being called "a
> tempest in a teapot," I am inclined to agree. Nevertheless, torrents of
> ink have
> been spilled in Europe, and
> some here. Perhaps, given the obfuscatory nature of the coverage, it would
> be
> useful for me to state the
> basic facts as I understand them and to say a few words about the
> principles that
> arise.
>
> In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian socialist
> scholar
> with a record of opposition to
> all forms of totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to
> insure
> Robert Faurisson's "safety and
> the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about
> his
> "holocaust studies" (he denies the
> existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews and
> questions the authenticity of
> the Anne Frank diary, among other things), apart from noting that they
> were the
> cause of "efforts to deprive
> Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression." It did not
> specify
> the steps taken against
> him, which include suspension from his teaching position at the University
> of
> Lyons after the threat of
> violence, and a forthcoming court trial for falsification of history and
> damages
> to victims of Nazism.
>
> The petition aroused considerable protest. In Nouvel Observateur, Claude
> Roy
> wrote that "the appeal
> launched by Chomsky" supported Faurisson's views. Roy explained my alleged
> stand
> as an attempt to
> show that the United States is indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. In
> Esprit,
> Pierre Vidal-Naquet found
> the petition "scandalous" on the ground that it "presented his
> 'conclusions' as
> if they were actually
> discoveries." Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that
> ran,
> "Since he began making his
> findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term
> "findings"
> is quite neutral. One can
> say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were
> judged
> worthless, irrelevant,
> falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's
> work,
> which was irrelevant to the
> issues raised.
>
> Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil
> libertarian
> aspects of this affair. I did so,
> telling him to use it as he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit
> that I
> would not discuss Faurisson's
> work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little
> interest in
> it). Rather, I restricted myself to the
> civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even
> necessary to recall Voltaire's famous
> words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would
> give my
> life to make it possible for
> you to continue to write."
>
> Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
> frequently expressed in print
> (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the
> holocaust as "the most
> fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is
> elementary that freedom of expression
> (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one
> approves, and that it is precisely
> in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned
> that this
> right must be most
> vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense
> or to
> join in unanimous (and
> often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some
> official
> enemy.
>
> I later learned that my statement was to appear in a book in which
> Faurisson
> defends himself against the
> charges soon to be brought against him in court. While this was not my
> intention,
> it was not contrary to my
> instructions. I received a letter from Jean-Pierre Faye, a well-known
> anti-Fascist writer and militant, who
> agreed with my position but urged me to withhold my statement because the
> climate
> of opinion in France
> was such that my defense of Faurisson's right to express his views would
> be
> interpreted as support for
> them. I wrote to him that I accepted his judgment, and requested that my
> statement not appear, but by then
> it was too late to stop publication.
>
> Parts of my letter to Faye appeared in the French press and have been
> widely
> quoted and misquoted and
> subjected to fantastic interpretations. It was reported, for example, that
> I
> repudiated my comments after
> having learned that there is anti-Semitism in France, and that I was
> changing my
> views on the basis of
> clippings from the French press (in the same letter, I had asked Faye to
> send me
> clippings on another
> matter). My personal letter to Faye was incomprehensible to anyone who had
> not
> read Faye's original letter
> to me; a telephone call would quickly have clarified the facts.
>
> The uproar that ensued is of some interest. In Le Matin (socialist),
> Jacques
> Baynac wrote that my
> fundamental error was to "defend, in the name of freedom of expression,
> the right
> to mock the facts" --
> "facts" determined, presumably, by some board of commissars or a
> reconstituted
> Inquisition. My lengthy
> discussion on the implications of this doctrine was from the occasionally
> recognizable version of the
> interview with me published in Le Matin. In Le Monde, the editor of
> Esprit, Paul
> Thibaud, wrote that I
> had condemned "the entire French intelligentsia," launching a "general
> accusation" against "les Francais"
> without qualifications. Alberto Cavallari, Paris correspondent for the
> Corriere
> della Sera went further still,
> claiming that I had condemned all of "French culture." The article is
> notable for
> a series of fabricated quotes
> designed to establish this and other allegations. What I had written was
> that
> though I would make some
> harsh comments about "certain segments of the French intelligentsia...
> certainly,
> what I say does not apply
> to many others, who maintain a firm commitment to intellectual
> integrity...I
> would not want these comments
> to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope." Similar
> qualifications are removed from the
> doctored "interview" in Le Matin, enabling the editors to allege that I
> describe
> France as "totalitarian."
>
> Cavallari went on to explain that my rage against "French culture" derives
> from
> its refusal to accept the
> theory that linguistics proves that "the Gulag descends directly from
> Rousseau"
> and other imbecile ideas he
> chooses to attribute to me for reasons best known to himself. In Nouvel
> Observateur, Jean-Paul Enthoven
> offers a different explanation: I support Faurisson because my
> "instrumentalist
> theory of language, the
> 'generative grammar'...does not allow the means to think of the
> unimaginable,
> that is the holocaust." He and
> Cavallari, among others, explain further that my defense of Faurisson is a
> case
> of the extreme left joining the
> extreme right, a phenomenon to which they devote many sage words. In Le
> Matin,
> Catherine Clement
> explains my odd behavior on the ground that I am a "perfect Bostonian," "a
> cold
> and distant man, without
> real social contacts, incapable of understanding Jewish-American humor,
> which
> relies heavily on Yiddish."
> Pierre Daix explains in Le Quotidien de Paris that I took up left-wing
> causes to
> "clear myself" of the
> reactionary implications of my "innatism." And so on, at about the same
> level.
>
> To illustrate the caliber of discussion, after I had noted that
> Vidal-Naquet's
> comment cited above was
> based on a misunderstanding, he reprinted his article in a book (Les
> Juifs, F.
> Maspero), eliminating the
> passage I quoted and adding an appendix in which he claims falsely that
> "the
> error in question had
> appeared only in an earlier draft," which I am accused of having
> illegitimately
> quoted. The example is,
> unfortunately, quite typical.
>
> A number of critics (for example Abraham Forman of the Anti-Defamation
> League in
> Le Matin) contend
> that the only issue is Faurisson's right to publish and that this has not
> been
> denied. The issue, however, is his
> suspension from the university because of threats of violence against him,
> and
> his court trial. It is of interest
> that his attorney, Yvon Chotard, who is defending him on grounds of
> freedom of
> expression and the right to
> an attorney of one's choice, has been threatened with expulsion from the
> anti-Fascist organization that is
> bringing Faurisson to trial.
>
> As Faye predicted, many showed themselves incapable of distinguishing
> between
> defense of the right of
> free expression and defense of the views expressed -- and not only in
> France. In
> The New Republic,
> Martin Peretz concluded from my expressed lack of interest in Faurisson's
> work
> that I am an "agnostic"
> about the holocaust and "a fool" about genocide. He claims further that I
> deny
> freedom of expression to my
> opponents, referring to my comment that one degrades oneself by entering
> into
> debate over certain issues.
> In short, if I refuse to debate you, I constrain your freedom. He is
> careful to
> conceal the example I cited:
> the holocaust.
>
> Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free
> expression for Faurisson without
> carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would
> effectively block defense of civil
> rights for unpopular views. Faurisson does not control the French press or
> scholarship. There is surely no
> lack of means or opportunity to refute or condemn his writings. My own
> views in
> sharp opposition to his
> are clearly on record, as I have said. No rational person will condemn a
> book,
> however outlandish its
> conclusions may seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case,
> checking the documentation offered,
> and so on. One of the most bizarre criticisms has been that by refusing to
> undertake this task, I reveal that I
> have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism which, if
> valid,
> applies to everyone who shares my
> lack of interest in examining Faurisson's work. One who defends the right
> of free
> expression incurs no
> special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views
> expressed. I
> have, for example,
> frequently gone well beyond signing petitions in support of East European
> dissidents subjected to
> repression or threats, often knowing little and caring less about their
> views
> (which in some cases I find
> obnoxious, a matter of complete irrelevance that I never mention in this
> connection). I recall no criticism of
> this stand.
>
> The latter point merits further comment. I have taken far more
> controversial
> stands than this in support of
> civil liberties and academic freedom. At the height of the Vietnam War, I
> publicly took the stand that
> people I regard as authentic war criminals should not be denied the right
> to
> teach on political or ideological
> grounds, and I have always taken the same stand with regard to scientists
> who
> "prove" that blacks are
> genetically inferior, in a country where their history is hardly pleasant,
> and
> where such views will be used by
> racists and neo-Nazis. Whatever one thinks of Faurisson, no one has
> accused him
> of being the architect of
> major war crimes or claiming that Jews are genetically inferior (though it
> is
> irrelevant to the civil-liberties
> issue, he writes of the "heroic insurrection of the Warsaw ghetto" and
> praises
> those who "fought
> courageously against Nazism" in "the right cause"). I even wrote in 1969
> that it
> would be wrong to bar
> counterinsurgency research in the universities, though it was being used
> to
> murder and destroy, a position
> that I am not sure I could defend. What is interesting is that these far
> more
> controversial stands never
> aroused a peep of protest, which shows that the refusal to accept the
> right of
> free expression without
> retaliation, and the horror when others defend this right, is rather
> selective.
>
> The reaction of the PEN Club in Paris is also interesting. PEN denounces
> my
> statements on the ground that
> they have given publicity to Faurisson's writing at a time when there is a
> resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is
> odd that an organization devoted to freedom of expression for authors
> should be
> exercised solely because
> Faurisson's defense against the charges brought against him is publicly
> heard.
> Furthermore, if publicity is
> being accorded to Faurisson, it is because he is being brought to trial
> (presumably, with the purpose of
> airing the issues) and because the press has chosen to create a scandal
> about my
> defense of his civil rights.
> On many occasions, I have written actual prefaces and endorsements for
> books in
> France -- books that
> are unread and unknown, as indeed is the case generally with my own
> writings. The
> latter fact is illustrated,
> for example, by Thibaud, who claims that I advocated "confiding Vietnamese
> freedom to the supposed
> good will of the leaders of the North." In fact, my writings on the war
> were
> overwhelmingly devoted to the
> U.S. attack on the peasant society of the South (and later Laos and
> Cambodia as
> well), which aimed to
> undermine the neutralization proposals of the National Liberation Front
> and
> others and to destroy the rural
> society in which the NLF was based, and I precisely warned that success in
> this
> effort "will create a
> situation in which, indeed, North Vietnam will necessarily dominate
> Indochina,
> for no other viable society
> will remain."
>
> Thibaud's ignorant falsifications point to one of the real factors that
> lie
> behind this affair. A number of these
> critics are ex-Stalinists, or people like Thibaud, who is capable of
> writing that
> prior to Solzhenitsyn, "every
> previous account" of "Sovietism" was within the Trotskyite framework
> (Esprit).
> Intellectuals who have
> recently awakened to the possibility of an anti-Leninist critique often
> systematically misunderstand a
> discussion of revolutionary movements and efforts to crush them that has
> never
> employed the assumptions
> they associate with the left. Thibaud, for example, cannot understand why
> I do
> not share his belief that
> Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot demonstrate "the failure of socialism." Many
> left or
> ex-left intellectuals seem
> unaware that I never have regarded Leninist movements as having anything
> to do
> with "socialism" in any
> meaningful sense of the term; or that, having grown up in the libertarian
> anti-Leninist left, familiar since
> childhood with works that Thibaud has still never heard of, I am
> unimpressed with
> their recent conversions
> and unwilling to join in their new crusades, which often strike me as
> morally
> dubious and intellectually
> shallow. All of this has led to a great deal of bitterness on their part
> and not
> a little outright deceit.
>
> As for the resurgence of anti-Semitism to which the PEN Club refers, or of
> racist
> atrocities, one may ask if
> the proper response to publication of material that may be used to enhance
> racist
> violence and oppression
> is to deny civil rights. Or is it, rather, to seek the causes of these
> vicious
> developments and work to
> eliminate them? To a person who upholds the basic ideas professed in the
> Western
> democracies, or who is
> seriously concerned with the real evils that confront us, the answer seems
> clear.
>
> There are, in fact, far more dangerous manifestations of "revisionism"
> than
> Faurisson's. Consider the effort
> to show that the United States engaged in no crimes in Vietnam, that it
> was
> guilty only of "intellectual error."
> This "revisionism," in contrast to that of Faurisson, is supported by the
> major
> institutions and has always
> been the position of most of the intelligentsia, and has very direct and
> ugly
> policy consequences. Should we
> then argue that people advocating this position be suspended from teaching
> and
> brought to trial? The issue
> is, of course, academic. If the version of the Zhdanov doctrine now being
> put
> forth in the Faurisson affair
> were adopted by people with real power, it would not be the "Vietnam
> revisionists" who would be
> punished.
>
> I do not want to leave the impression that the whole of the French press
> has been
> a theater of the absurd or
> committed to such views as those reviewed. There has been accurate
> commentary in
> Le Monde and
> Liberation, for example, and a few people have taken a clear and honorable
> stand.
> Thus Alfred Grosser,
> who is critical of what he believes to be my position, writes in Le
> Quotidien de
> Paris: "I consider it
> shocking that Mr. Faurisson should be prevented from teaching French
> literature
> at the University of Lyons
> on the pretext that his security cannot be guaranteed."
>
> In the Italian left-liberal journal Repubblica, Barbara Spinelli writes
> that the
> real scandal in this affair is the
> fact that even a few people publicly affirm their support of the right to
> express
> ideas that are almost
> universally reviled -- and that happen to be diametrically opposed to
> their own.
> My own observation is
> different. It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary
> to
> debate these issues two
> centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views
> he
> detested. It is a poor service to
> the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of
> their
> murderers.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>