To deny or not to deny: A comparison of genocide denial legislation in France and Australia

Abstract

When discussing how to best combat genocide denial, denial legislation is all too often presented as the premier solution. However, as this article will showcase, a legal approach in the face of genocide denial is utterly inadequate. Real-world applications of denial legislation are plagued by issues like politicisation and potentially empowering denialists to the point that these policies are ineffectual or even counterproductive. I therefore posit that in light of denial legislation’s ineffectiveness, as demonstrated by France’s Gayssot law, that these policies should not be enacted in the case of Australia because they would prove ineffectual. The article that followsis structured in five parts. The first two segments address the relevant definitions and literature. The third part evaluates the arguments for and against denial laws by using France’s Gayssot law as an existing example in order to gauge denial legislation’s effectiveness. The fourth section applies the earlier analyses to the case for denial laws in Australia, especially considering the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Finally, the article presents a discussion of alternative approaches to combatting genocide denial, specifically truth commissions and confrontation. I conclude that in light of denial legislation in France and its overall ineffectiveness, Australia should not implement genocide denial laws as they would ultimately prove ineffectual.