History: an argument with an end

One can sympathise with the aspirations of the Armenian people and admire the courage of the likes of Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk and Tanar Ackan, while nevertheless defending the right to freedom of expression for those who articulate a conclusion that one finds to be suspect or even odious.

John Stuart Mill summarised this nearly a century and a half ago:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Die Weltwoche followed Stone’s article with a reply from Swiss historian Hans-Lukas Kieser, thereby following that old fashioned approach of providing two sides of the story - in other words, an argument.

Roger Köppel, editor of Die Weltwoche, claimed that the investigation of his magazine by the Zürich court is “incomprehensible”. Perhaps he now realises that the great historical issues of our day will be decided, not by historical argument, but by parliamentary vote, and prosecutors and judges will enforce these decisions. Peter Geyl must be turning in his grave.