Julius Grower – an Associate Professor of Law at Oxford University – has written an open letter on free speech at ‘The Critic’ titled ‘An open letter on academic free speech’ which makes rather odd reading to say the least given that he seeks to argue for ‘free speech’ but then also states what ‘speech isn’t free speech’ if you will.
He writes in response to Mark Ferguson – a Labour member of parliament in Britain – wondering if ‘academic free speech’ included ‘Holocaust denial’, ‘Islamist positions’ and ‘vaccine denial’ and begins by explaining the context of his remarks as follows:
‘My name is Julius Grower, and I am an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford. I am writing to you having seen your contribution to the debate around the urgent question, asked today in the House of Commons, about freedom of speech in universities.
Towards the end of your remarks, you said: “Would my honourable friend [the Minister] agree with me that the party opposite’s position is in fact a charter for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Holocaust deniers, and vaccine deniers to wander our universities freely?”’ (1)
This is fair enough as context and explains what Grower is actually responding to albeit it is very obviously a rhetorical point by Ferguson in that he believes that ‘free speech’ doesn’t include ‘Holocaust denial’, ‘vaccine denial’ and pro-Islamist arguments (i.e., Hizb ut-Tahrir) with which Grower somewhat agrees when he writes that:
‘The definition of freedom of speech in the Act is expressly said to be that covered by Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998). Article 10(1) is plainly and uncontrovertibly qualified by Article 10(2) and by Article 17. Furthermore, Article 17 has been interpreted by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, as specifically excluding Holocaust denial from the right to any legal protection.’ (2)
To convert this from legalistic sophistry into plain English; Grower is here stating that the European Convention of Human Rights is interpreted as specifically excluding ‘Holocaust Denial’ which is apparently not categorized as ‘free speech’ because it isn’t counted as ‘protected speech’. Grower’s logic here is that ‘Holocaust denial’ is illegal because ‘the courts say so’ and because they dress said ban as ‘human rights legislation’ it is therefore right, good and proper.
This is absolute nonsense of course because no event – let alone a historical event about which critical inquiry and scholarship must not only be allowed but encouraged (especially given the tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars which have been paid to jews and/or the Israeli state on the basis of said historical claim) – can be ruled as ‘absolutely true’ or ‘absolutely false’ by… well… lawyers.
Indeed the ‘Holocaust’ is almost unique in that it allegedly needs this level of legal protection from so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ and if it was actually ‘the best documented event in history’ as is often claimed then ‘Holocaust denial’ should no threat at all and be relegated to the lunatic fringe so-to-speak.
However, the problem is that these rhetorical claims about ‘masses of evidence/documentation’ simply aren’t true since as Carlo Mattogno observed as early as 1988:
‘What strikes one most in the voluminous literature dedicated to the “extermination” of the Jews is the disparity existing between so grave an accusation and the fragility of the evidence furnished for its support.’ (3)
The situation down to the present day has not only remained largely unchanged for the ‘pro-Holocaust’ crowd but now numerous detailed micro-historical studies of the extant documentary record from academic and lay scholars have shown quite the opposite to be true.
This is why Grower and Ferguson are both concerned about ‘Holocaust denial’ since that which you are not afraid of you don’t legislate against and indeed the idea of legislating ‘historical truth’ reminds one of Soviet attempts to do just this throughout the existence of Soviet Union.
Indeed, if we juxtapose Grower’s thesis about legislative protection for ‘Holocaust denial’ to say the idea (correct as it happens based on the scholarly literature but often claimed to be a ‘myth’ by popular and left-wing writers) of Judeo-Bolshevism and then stated that because legislative protections had been removed for ‘denying the reality of Judeo-Bolshevism’ and that this was no longer ‘protected speech’ then Grower would likely be kvetching loudly about it how this was ‘legislative overreach’ or some such nonsense.
This Judeocentric utilitarian view of the law and historical truth is then shown by Grower’s next comments, which are that:
‘Incidentally, although I do not think I should have to say this in order for my points to be taken seriously, it seems appropriate to make clear that I myself am Jewish, and am acutely aware of the problems of anti-semitism on our campuses. However, I believe that the solution to that issue is to give effect to legislation which will more effectively allow Jews and Zionists to hold their own events on campuses, and stop them from being closed down by murky threats made by mobs. Unfortunately, as we have just seen with Suella Braveman’s cancelled talk in Cambridge, this is precisely what is happening under the current (unreformed) regulatory regime.’ (4)
Put another way: according to Grower the law should reflect the intellectual and political priorities of jews because Grower is himself jewish, but yet if we were turn this position around and suggest that the law should reflect the intellectual and political priorities of the British people then no doubt Grower would start shrieking hysterically about ‘anti-Semitism’ because the intellectual and political priorities of the jews in Britain – such as Grower – are not the intellectual and political priorities of the British people and are in fact at odds with them.
It is also worth noting Grower not only wants ‘Holocaust denial’ to remain illegal in the United Kingdom (and Europe), but also wants to extend that illegality to criticism of jews, Zionists and presumably Israel as well. This once again demonstrates my contention above that the interests of the British people are not – and indeed counter to - those of the jews and Israel.
We can further see this judeocentrality when Grower moves on to vaccines when all of a sudden, he is a proponent of ‘honest debate’ between academics, scholars and lay persons when he writes:
‘(A side thought. If you really do think “vaccine denialism” at universities should not be protected speech, how would you otherwise distinguish between medical experts who are genuinely questioning the efficacy of some treatments (e.g. as people did at the start of the Thalidomide scandal) and those engaging in what you think is inappropriate questioning? If you won’t allow both forms of speech to be expressed and then subject to the rigorous scrutiny of other academics, can you please explain where you would prospectively and clearly draw a line between them?)’ (5)
It is indeed ironic that Grower is quite happy for ‘rigorous scrutiny’ about the efficacy of vaccines, but when that for ‘rigorous scrutiny’ is applied to the jews, Zionism and/or Israeli (but especially the foundational event for all three in modernity: the so-called ‘Holocaust’) he is not only completely against it, but calling for increasingly stringent legislated curbs on discussion.
We can thus Grower is not only a hypocrite but also engages in what I can only term as an implied form of jewish supremacism.
References
(1) https://thecritic.co.uk/an-open-letter-on-academic-free-speech/
(2) Ibid.
(3) Carlo Mattogno, 1988, ‘The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews (Part I)’, The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 2, p. 133
(4) https://thecritic.co.uk/an-open-letter-on-academic-free-speech/
(5) Ibid.