I think the law in many countries which makes it a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust, is outrageous. Although I do not, in any way, endorse the actions or share any of the ideas of the individuals who challenge the existence of the holocaust, such a law allows the state to define and shape what historical truth is, and possibly to their benefit, or preferred view of it.

History, as we know today, isn’t absolute. That is to say, although it is in the ethics of a historian or any academic to present the events that transpired as accurately as possible, there are always situations (due to the nature of the subject) in which the clear cut answer isn’t available and facts have to be deduced from whatever information or clues available. In the process of arriving at the answer, many different factors, such as one’s natural biasness, the information available (or lack of), or the agenda behind the discovery of it, will affect the results of the interpretation.

For example, how can we absolutely certain about what some guy did about 3000 years ago? Sure, there might be information left over from that era that could more or less point us in the right direction, and maybe records or personal journals. But can we be absolutely certain that our interpretation his every act, and the motive behind each of them are flawlessly accurate? I think not.

So to conclude, it is therefore important that history be opened to doubts and challenges, and not be  something that is defined by the state, or some other authoritative figure. Its akin to having a “Ministry of Truth”.