Germany, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, has proposed making Holocaust denial a crime and banning Nazi symbols across the EU. However, each member state will have the right to set its own rules about punishment.

The Germans are not the first to attempt an EU-wide ban against Holocaust denial; two years ago, Luxemburg used its EU presidency to try to unify legal standards for Holocaust denial. At the time, Italy blocked the legislation because it would breach freedom of speech.

Laws against denying the Holocaust already exist in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain. EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini, attending an informal meeting of EU justice and interior ministers in Dresden, said: 'While preserving the freedom of expression we have to prevent inciting hatred.' But it is hard to see just how the German proposal, which also seeks to criminalise racist declarations that are an incitement to violence against a specific person or group, will preserve freedom of expression.

British historian David Irving was convicted in Austria in February 2006 for Holocaust denial, but he was let out on probation by the end of the year. Upon his release, Irving said: 'I was put in prison for three years for expressing an opinion 17 years ago.' His act of defiance was to urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians.

In other words, he wanted to suppress freedom of expression in order to make a point about freedom of expression. It is easy to dismiss, as it came from a crank like Irving - but, in reality, the German proposal is no less ridiculous. They, too, want to clamp down on free speech while talking about defending and honouring free speech.

Nathalie Rothschild