The Case of Richard Williamson

In my last posting, I advanced the argument that despicable as they may be, promoters of hate should not be criminally punished for expressing their views. My argument was based on three principal grounds. First, freedom of speech is a fundamental value that should be protected, absent strong justification. Second, criminalizing hate speech does not reduce hate, only its expression. Third, it is preferable that hate mongers be publicly exposed as such, rather than having their views remaining hidden. Through public exposure and censure those who espouse hate can be identified and prevented from potentially occupying positions of influence and importance.

The cases of David Ahenakew and Richard Williamson can usefully be compared. As noted in my earlier posting, David Ahenakew expressed his anti-Semitic views in 2002 and was prosecuted under the Canadian Criminal Code provision 319(2). Seven years later, after two trials and one appeal, Mr. Ahenakew was acquitted. This acquittal provoked anger and disappointment among some, and no doubt relief among others. It is difficult to know what ordinary people who do not read law judgments for a living will read into the Ahenakew verdict. Perhaps they will think that the verdict means that Ahenakew was correct in his opinions about Jews, or that he was unfairly prosecuted? Perhaps they will be disgusted with the judicial system or the inadequacy of the law that sent him to trial in the first place? I do not know. What I do know, however, is that most will agree that a lot of time and money was spent on a prosecution that, in the end result, accomplished little.

Compare this with the case of Bishop Richard Williamson. Richard Williamson is the disgraced British Bishop who in a television interview denied that any Jew died in a Nazi gas chamber. He did acknowledge that Jews died in concentration camps, and put the figure at about "200,000 to 300,000". His comments provoked an international furore, particularly because Bishop Williamson had only recently been readmitted to the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI. Bishop Williamson had been excommunicated by the Church 20 years ago due to other Church issues.

The spot light on Bishop Williamson and his denial of the Holocaust resulted in a number of consequences for Williamson. He was ordered by the Vatican to retract his comments. As a result he issued an apology in which he stated that he regretted having made his remarks and conceded that had he known how much harm and hurt they would cause to the Church and to "survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich", he would not have made them. This "apology" was rejected as being insufficient by the Vatican and by many others. The Vatican then called upon Williamson to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments. In addition, Williamson was ordered to leave Argentina, where he had been residing, because of his "deeply offensive" comments, and he returned to a hostile reception in Britain. Other reactions included Williamson being banned by Cardinal Roger Mahony from entering any Roman Catholic Church, school or facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and a similiar condemnation of Williamson by the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

These repercussions resulted despite there having been no criminal charges laid against Williamson, although future criminal prosecution is possible under German law for denial of the Holocaust. The beliefs of Williamson only came to light because he had made the mistake of making them public. The views of this ignorant and hateful man have caused him to be shunned and dishonoured in the court of public opinion. And that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.