Abstract
Holocaust deniers assert the Nazi murder of the Jews never happened. Responses to Holocaust denial take two forms: rebuttal and unmasking. Advocates of the first strategy respond with documentation that rebuts every point raised by the deniers. Some, most notably Deborah Lipstadt, have rejected this path, warning that it risks creating the appearance of a debate between deniers and non-deniers. The alternative strategy, unmasking, avoids this danger by focusing on the racist and antisemitic background of Holocaust deniers. Lipstadt follows this strategy in her book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. At the same time, the failure to address the specific factual claims of Holocaust deniers leaves the unmasking approach open to charges of being an ad hominem attack. Which strategy is better? While this question cannot be answered for all times and places, one can come to conclusions about one particular context: litigation. Here, R. v. Zundel is one of the most noteworthy cases. In 1985 Ernst Zundel stood trial for knowingly disseminating false news. At issue was a pamphlet titled Did Six Million Really Die?. At trial, the prosecution rebutted the pamphlet through testimony of Holocaust survivors, Holocaust-related documents and the common law doctrine of judicial notice. Although the jury did convict Zundel, this came after pro-defence legal rulings and newspaper headlines created an atmosphere of controversy. In 1987 Zundel's conviction was overturned. At the retrial a new prosecutor, John Pearson, switched from rebuttal to unmasking. His intention was to show that Zundel was a Hitler admirer who, therefore, had a motive to lie about the Holocaust. The result was a less controversial trial but also one that was less effective as a statement against Holocaust denial.