am a most fervent supporter of free speech.  Indeed, it is because I so fervently support free speech that I am so vehemently opposed to political correctness.  This brings me quickly to Iran’s conference on the Holocaust.  The claim, of course, is that there was no Holocaust and this was all just a fabrication in order to aid Jews: a zionist conspiracy, as they say. 

Well, I am quite consist in my thinking here.  I do not oppose this conference, which was attended by David Duke—the former member of the KKK, who praised the Iranian president, Mr. Mamoud Ahamadinejad, for promoting free speech.  For as some readers of this blog may know: speaking against the Holocaust is illegal in most of Western Europe. 

Hard questioning can be most enriching and instructive—forcing us to re-examine view and argue anew for views that we cherish.  This is a good thing.  So in one sense challenge to the occurrence of the Holocaust is a good thing, when it done in an atmosphere of genuine debate where theses and counter-theses are honestly acknowledged and debated. 

However, in anyone who thinks that this is what is happening at the Iran conference on the Holocaust is either on crack or in fact an antisemite.  A conference on examining the reality of the Holocaust would have to have both sides represented. 

The absence of both sides there is indication enough of the true motives behind the conference.  Then there is the invocation of readily available thesis of a zionist conspiracy, which has nothing whatsoever to do with facts.  The zionist conspiracy is about blaming Jews for whatever ails one or using the idea of blaming Jews in order to gain leverage in one way or the other. 

After all, what fact counts as evidence of a zionist conspiracy?  How about the mere existence of Jews at this point in time!  No one has produced a single document—nay, a single anything after all these—years in support of a zionist conspiracy.  And a zionist conspiracy to do what?  Rule the world? 

Whatever ghost of evidence that might warrant the idea of a zionist conspiracy also warrants all sorts of conspiracies.  For instance, the French surely have a conspiracy that all the world speaks French.  Why else would France make French the language of France.  And it is the conspiracy of women to become impregnated by men in order to obtain money from men.  Proof: a pregnant woman can take a man to court for child support.  What power? 

Then there is there is the conspiracy of flight attendants to control passengers.  Why else would they make such a fuss about buckling the seat belt?  I mean come on: Does anyone really believe that if a plane falls out of the sky, what will make the difference between life and death is whether one has one’s seat belt buckled or not?  I sure hope not. 

I am beginning to like the flight attendant conspiracy, which certainly is no less plausible than the zionist conspiracy. 

At any rate, what intrigues me about Iran’s conference on the Holocaust is silence of the rest of the world.

I can remember when words like “shit” and “damn” and “fuck” (and the like) were seen as fundamentally abrasive and were not to be used in polite company.  A person who slipped and uttered such a word was embarrassed and apologetic.  That was then.  This is now.  We have essentially become pretty unphased by the utterance of such words.  They are used to often and so regularly that they have become pretty much become a part of ordinary parlance. 

That excursion down memory lane with respect to the use of profanity was not for naught.  It is meant to bring to our attention the phenomenon of moral numbness.  Here is another example.  I can remember when blacks rarely used the word “nigger”.  It was offensive.  But here we are today where that once offensive word is now regularly used in popular music—music listened to by large numbers of whites.  I mention this because there was a time when using the word “nigger” was bad enough.  But it was even worse to do so in the presence of whites.  And, of course, every white understood the word used in references to blacks could not help but be pejorative.  Two decades or so ago this would have been seen as utterly impossible.  Oh how we can change in spite of ourselves.

The relevance of this to Iran’s conference on the Holocaust is this.  While I would not dream of claiming that it should not have happened, it is manifestly clear to me that our silence is itself deafening.  And that is what I find most frightening. 

As I have always said: It would not particularly surprise or pain me if a KKK person called me “nigger”.  But if all my friends who witnessed the moment were indifferent to that, I would be greatly pained.  When evil people do or say evil things, that is to be expected.  It is, alas, the behavior of so-called decent people that is of the utmost importance. 

In a world of free speech, there is a moral responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of others.  A person may be entitled to say whatever she or he pleases.  From that entitlement, though, what simply does not follow is that others must sit by quietly.  Quite the contrary, others have an obligation to make those who speak accountable for what they say.

Free speech, then, is not thereby a license to be unaccountable for what one says.  It does not entail duty on the part of others to be silent.  Listeners are perfectly within their rights to hold a person who speaks accountable for her or his words.  And it sheer nonsense to suppose otherwise.  This is precisely why John Stuart Mill wrote so fervently in favor of free speech.  For it is in a world of accountability that he envisioned free speech to be one of humankind’s greatest assets. 

On my view, the world is not holding Iran accountable.  And it is this fact that I hold most frightening.  And I find myself wondering whether or not we have set ourselves, however, unwittingly upon a path of habituation.  Just as words like “shit” are not a part of everyday parlance, barely causing an eyebrow to raise, has it become acceptable, as our silence would indicated, for states and heads of state to support conferences whose raison d’être is that disparaging remarks about Jews are made with reckless abandon.  And if we have “good” reasons not protest this conference in Iran, shall we also not protest the next one?  Or what about the one after that?  

Or will it be too late because we ourselves will have already become habituated to disparaging words being uttered against Jews—the second time around.  Therein lies my problem with our silence.  And the way in which we talk about people plays a formidable role with respect to the way in which we envisage them.  This is precisely why Hitler employed such horrific language and imagery in referring to Jews.  It was a way of shaping the way in which the denizens of Nazi Germany conceived of Jews.  Again, this is why the single most significant linguistic move on the part of blacks was the employment of the word “black” rather than “Negro” or “colored” as form of self-reference; for this moved deprived the word its horrendous connotations with respect to blacks.

Mamoud Ahamadinejad knows all too well that there was a Holocaust.  Indeed, he is being brilliantly evil in employing the methods of Hitler to desensitize the world with respect to Jews.  Of course, no decent person wants this.  But desensitization does not attend to our wants.  Rather, it exploits our inaction.  If this is right, then it is not at all hyperbole to suggest that Ahamadinejad’s intentions are none other to complete the “work” that Hitler did not complete.  Sounds ludicrous, I know.  While we are laughing, though, may I point out that he has already been more successful in terms of taking a first step than anyone would have imagined possible just a decade or so ago. 

Don't you worry.  We are all decent folks.  Exactly what the folks of Nazi Germany said about themselves.  Then there is the frightening experiments by Stanly Milgram as reported in his marvelous book Obedience to Authority.  Moral decency is not a state of mind; it is an active mode of being.