Dear Editor:

I was distraught to read the inverted letter by Alberta University’s Dr. Srdja Pavlovic (”Denying genocide should not be called freedom of speech,” Feb. 28), supporting Dr. Srdja Trifkovic’s being barred from Canada. While the basis of the ban was that Trifkovic had a high position in the Karadzic government (he did not), Pavlovic supported the ban on the astounding basis that Srebrenica genocide denial does not constitute free speech.

If genocide denial isn’t freedom of speech, what is? Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood in Illinois is freedom of speech, but denying a genocide — even one that saw children and the child-bearing population bused to safety by the accused before the male-on-male gun battles began — isn’t? And why does Pavlovic presume to be the arbiter of what does or doesn’t constitute freedom of speech?

Even though I’m Jewish, it sends shudders down my spine when I hear of yet another arrest or trial in Europe of a Holocaust denier. More so than when I hear the denier speak. For, the revisionists are a type I’m familiar with. But this strange, Orwellian world that’s burgeoning is new to my experience, and disturbing. Kafka and Rand foretold of it too.

But Pavlovic doesn’t mind the dystopia, as long as he thrives in it. And never becomes a target. Good luck. That isn’t how it works.

Endorsing the arbitrary tyranny of a world court, Pavlovic continues, “The judgment of the [ICTY] in The Hague had clearly categorized Srebrenica as the crime of genocide. Such a decision was supported by the overwhelming evidence.”

Pavlovic writes as if he were involved in the Hague’s investigations, or as someone who bothered to follow the proceedings there. Unless he represents .0000000000000000000000000001% of the world’s small intelligentsia and academic community, he did neither. In other words, he has no clue whether the Hague’s decision was supported by “overwhelming evidence” or not. He’s simply saying it was, without knowing if that’s the case.

What he is blissfully ignorant of is that the Hague’s judgment on Srebrenica is not a ‘finding,’ or a judgment based on professional investigation — but merely a proclamation. He also seems unaware of the unique ability by the Hague’s experts to defy all forensic science, determining manner of death (”Execution!”) from a single bone fragment, which often is all that’s found of someone deemed a “massacre victim” in order to fulfill the “8,000″ quota.

As readers of this blog know, evidence is precisely what is lacking as concerns Srebrenica; it is despite the underwhelming evidence that the Court has declared “genocide.” Such was the foregone conclusion that needed to be arrived at by the end of any investigations, in order for lengthy sentences to be issued to Serbian officials and generals — who were condemned long before their trials ever began. For the crime of being Serbian officials during war. It’s an appeasement tactic designed to avoid Muslim protests that, in the event of any contrary verdicts, could make the Muhammed Cartoon Riots look like pep rallies.

Andy Wilcoxson — someone who, unlike Pavlovic, has followed the proceedings — wrote last year:

…Forensic investigators had only exhumed 2,028 bodies when the judgment was handed down. The judges could not have known how the remaining 5,000 to 6,000 persons whose remains had not been found, and for whom no post-mortem forensic investigation had been done, had died or even if they were all dead at all.

…The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) is doing DNA analysis to determine the identity of the victims, but they’re doing absolutely nothing to determine how any of them died, which makes it impossible to say how many of them were victims of a war crime and how many were simply victims of the war or belligerents killed in combat.

By affixing the “genocide” label to Srebrenica the Tribunal has undermined the will to do any further investigation into the cause of death of the bodies still being exhumed. Every corpse that is exhumed is assumed to have been executed by the Bosnian-Serbs during the so-called “genocide” even though there is a distinct possibility that they weren’t.

Ah, but then we hear that it’s Trifkovic’s alleged “manner” of denying Srebrenica that Pavlovic finds criminal: “While calling for a dialogue they shout at their critics, rather than talk to them and then have the audacity to call such shouting the expression of the freedom of speech.”

Only someone who has never heard Trifkovic speak can think the man a yeller. One wonders if he’s capable of raising his voice at all. It’s the cold, quiet meticulousness of his facts and delivery that is enough to make any opponent feel shouted down. Interestingly, the response to him is often emotional, invested, and high-pitched, shutting down the dialogue.

We have a case of projection as Pavlovic does his part to protect the carefully guarded, undebatable — and mostly undebated — official truth of Bosnia. His projection is preceded by an inversion: “Dr. Trifkovic and his supporters do not want to have a dialogue…they see their version of the past as true and valid, and demand that others believe it, too.”

This is precisely the specialty of those who won’t hear of calling the Srebrenica crime anything other than “genocide.” No, Mr. Pavlovic, you demonstrably are not “in favour of a dialogue and a critical evaluation of evidence.”

It is clear that Pavlovic is trying to distance himself as a Serb from this other Serb whose first name he shares. He doesn’t want to be kicked out of the intellectual In crowd, and he wants to ensure that his job as an adjunct professor at University of Alberta remains intact. I’m reminded of a letter that appeared on the front page of NY Times during the 1999 Kosovo war, by a Serbian woman who proclaimed that even if one Albanian was gratuitously killed during Belgrade’s counter-insurgency (after years of fatal Albanian brutality and terror which cleansed non-Albanians from the province — see 1980s Washington Post, NY Times and Financial Times), then Serbia deserved war to rain down on it by 19 NATO states, removing all policing structures and handing the region over to a crime syndicate, and establishing a now notorious haven for heroin-trafficking, organ-trafficking, slave-trafficking, jihadists and explosives dealers.

As with that writer, Pavlovic’s approach is as brainless and hypocritical as it is transparent.