Background
Anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon, which frequently finds expression in Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial denies the Nazi genocide against Jews during the WWII or seeks to minimize its true scale. Such speech is a criminal offence in several European states. A French historian, Robert Faurisson, in an interview with a magazine said it was his personal conviction that there were no homicidal gas chambers for the extermination of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. When convicted over these comments, he claimed before the HRC that his freedom of expression had been violated. The HRC upheld the conviction as a justifiable interference with his freedom of expression under Article 19 ICCPR (See: Faurisson v France, CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996)). It was persuaded by the French government`s argument that Holocaust denial is the main vehicle of anti-Semitism in France.
In Perinçek v Switzerland, a Turkish politician was the subject of criminal conviction for publicly expressing the view, in Switzerland, that events of 1915 in Ottoman Empire was not amounted to genocide. ECtHR found that there had been a violation of article 10 of the ECHR. It had not been necessary, in a democratic society, to subject Perinçek to criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of Armenian community. Perinçek`s statements based on a matter of public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance (See: Perinçek v Switzerland, (2016) 63 EHRR 6).
Assignment
Compare and contrast, Faurisson v France with Perinçek v Switzerland. There is no need to summarize the cases. Instead, isolate the key ways in which the decisions of these international human rights treaty bodies differ from each other.
The assignment should be NO longer that 500 words max (excluding footnotes). The world limit will be applied strictly. Make sure to cite your sources.
