Truth on Trial: Law, Memory and Freedom of Expression in Europe
Author | Poorna Mishra |
TruthonTrial:Law,Memory,andFreedom
ofExpressioninEurope
ByPoornaMishra*
Thisarticlearguesthat‘memorylaws’,lawsthat
criminalisespeechactsthatnegatecertainhistorical
atrocities,conflictwiththerighttofreedomof
expressionassetoutintheInternationalCovenant
onCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)andthe
EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR).
Theapproachesemployedbythegoverningbodiesof
thesetreatiesareexamined,andacaseismadefora
purelycontext‐basedassessmentwhenconsidering
theimpugnedspeechact,wherethenecessity
principlegoverns.TheguillotineeffectofArticle17
contextualanalysisofwhetherrestrictingthespeech
actinquestionisinfact‘necessary’.TheEuropean
CourtofHumanRights(ECtHR)shouldmovecloser
towardstheapproachoftheHumanRights
Committee(HRC),wherealimitationjustifiedonthe
basisofcontentmustalsocomplywiththenecessity
principle.Itisfurtherarguedthatgenericincitement
lawsarebetterequippedindealingwithextreme
speech,astheycanfacilitateamoremeaningful
analysisofthe‘likelihoodofharm’.Moreover,
legislatingonhistoricalmemorypersecarrieswithit
publicdiplomacyconcerns.Theslipperyslopeeffect
isevidencedintheEUFrameworkDecisionon
CombatingRacismandXenophobia(EUFramework
Decision),whichpavedthewayfornewmemory
72SLJ5(1)
lawsconcerningstill‐debatedatrocities.Thetaskof
preservinghistoricalmemoryshouldultimatelyliein
non‐legislativemeasures.
Introduction
‘Sticksandstonesmaybreakmybones
Butwordswillneverhurtme.’
Thisoldadage,generallyconfinedtochildren’splaygrounds,
isusedtoencouragethevictimofname‐callingorbullyingto
ignorethetauntandremaincalmandgood‐natured.Its
presenceinapaperaboutlaw,genocidedenial,andfreedom
ofexpressionmaybesurprising,giventhecontextinwhichit
isusuallyheard.However,theverseʹsbasicnotion,thatone
shouldriseaboveverbalinsultsandabuse,isonethatis
relevanttoanydiscussioninvolvingthelimitsoffreespeech.
Words,asweknow,cananddocauseharm,andthisis
essentiallywhylegislationdealingwithnegationistspeech
exists.Someideasareconsideredsopernicious,soabhorrent,
thatthemerefactofutteringthemisjudgedtobepunishable.
Europeanstatesareincreasinglyturningtocriminallaw
sanctionsinthecourseofdeterringthedisseminationofsuch
ideasandtherebypreservingthecollectivememoryofa
society.Germany,France,andSpainarejustthreeamong
severalcountries,whichnowhavesomeformof‘memory
laws’‐nationalcriminallawsagainstthenegationismof
certainhistoricalfacts–inplace.1
*PoornaMishraiscurrentlyworkinginDigitalRightsata
London‐basedonlinemediacompany.SheholdsanLLMfrom
theUniversityofLondonSOAS.
TruthonTrial73
TheadoptionofsuchmemorylawsacrossEuropehas
sparkedbothacademicandpoliticaldiscussionastothe
interplaybetweenlaw,history,andhumanrights.Lawcan
besaidtohave‘shapedhistoricalmemory’2,particularlyin
thecontextofmodernconstitutions,whichstandlargely‘as
responsestothearrivaloroverthrowofsome…imperial
power’3andareeffectively‘codifiedmemoriesofan
overthrownpast’.4Inthisregard,lawandhistoryare,and
alwayshavebeen,inseparable.
Memorylawsarebuta‘recentsubsetofthefarbroader,age‐
oldcategoryoflawaffectinghistoricalmemory’.5Here,lawis
essentiallybeingusedtoaddwhatHeinzeterms‘expressive
weight’6;thelevelofopportunityaffordedtoanopiniontobe
1Statesbanningdenialofawiderclassofcrimes:Spain(Penal
Code,Art607(2)againstgenocides’justification),Luxembourg
(PenalCode,Art457‐3targetingHolocaustandother
genocides),Liechtenstein(PenalCode,Section283(1)(5),
genocideandothercrimesagainsthumanity),Switzerland
(PenalCode,Art261bis(4),genocideandcrimesagainst
humanity),Malta(PenalCode,Art83B,genocide,crimes
againsthumanityandwarcrimes),Slovenia(PenalCode,Art
297,genocide,crimesagainsthumanityandwarcrimes)and
Latvia(PenalCode,Art74.1,genocide,crimesagainst
humanity,crimesagainstpeaceandwarcrimes).
2EricHeinze,‘Beyond“MemoryLaws”:TowardsaGeneral
TheoryofLawandHistoricalDiscourse’inUladzislau
Belavusau&AleksandraGliszczyńska‐Grabias(eds),Lawand
Memory:AddressingHistoricalInjusticebyLaw(Cambridge
UniversityPress,forthcoming).
3Ibid4.
4Ibid4.
5Ibid3.
6Ibid.
To continue reading
Request your trial