European Diary:Germany unveiled its plan for an EU-wide ban on "genocide denial" on the International Day of Commemoration for victims of the Holocaust last week.
Citing its "particular historic responsibility", Berlin pledged to use its EU presidency to combat racism and xenophobia in the union. It wants to outlaw the dissemination of racist and xenophobic statements and make "denial" or "gross minimisation" of genocide from racist motives a crime in all 27 EU states.
"We have always said that it should not still be acceptable in Europe to say the Holocaust never existed and that six million Jews were never killed," said German justice minister Brigitte Zypries, who hopes to pass the law by the end of the German presidency in June.
Germany, France, Austria and several other EU states already have a ban on Holocaust denial. For example, in February 2006 Austria used this to successfully prosecute the British author and Holocaust denier David Irving, who was sentenced last year to three years in prison.
Ms Zypries has cited the growth of neo-Nazi and far-right groups across Europe as a good reason for a new law. This was underlined last month when a far-right group was formed in the European Parliament, whose leader French MEP Bruno Gollnisch was recently given a three-month suspended sentence for Holocaust denial.
But harmonising this type of law across all 27 EU states, each with its own cultural and historical experiences, will not be easy to achieve.
An EU-wide draft law on xenophobia and racism was first mooted by the European Commission in 2001 but has been stalled at the Council of Ministers ever since. The last attempt to get it sanctioned by ministers fell in 2005 when Italy, whose government at the time included the extreme right-wing Northern League, balked at the measure. But with the assumption of power by socialist prime minister Romano Prodi, Rome has reportedly dropped its objections to the measure.
But other hurdles remain, particularly any potential curbs on freedom of speech.
"There will be objections to the proposal. For example, the traditional British approach to civil liberties and freedom of speech is very different," says Hugo Brady, an expert on justice at the think tank Centre for European Reform. "There are also a lot of central EU states with very vocal far-right groups . . . many states will argue that this type of law is really a matter for national governments."
Since floating the proposal to a group of sceptical journalists in January, Berlin moved quickly to limit its scope to increase its chance of adoption. Earlier plans for a mandatory prison sentence of between one and three years and a ban on the swastika symbol used by the Nazis are not in the new draft proposal.
The complexities and sensitivities of legislating on the issue were illustrated last week when Hindu groups reacted angrily to reports that Germany was seeking an EU ban on the swastika, which is an important symbol in their religion.
Commentators in former communist states have also floated the idea of using the new legislation to ban the communist symbol, the hammer and sickle. Warsaw also wants to outlaw the term "Polish death camp" for descriptions of Nazi camps such as Auschwitz.
Yet despite concerns raised in some EU capitals about the proposed law the commission is supporting the German initiative.
"We feel it is important to send a political signal that there should be no safe havens for xenophobia, racism or Islamophobia in the EU. And this would be an appropriate year to do so given that it is the EU's 50th anniversary and the EU is not just about economics but also about values," said a spokesman for the justice commissioner.
But evaluating what constitutes a genocide will be tricky in Europe, precisely because of cultural and historical differences. For example, French parliamentarians recently tabled a law banning denial of the Armenian genocide. However, in Turkey - a candidate for EU membership - calling this historical episode a genocide is illegal.
Berlin has indicated it will be left to international and national courts to determine what constitutes a genocide.
The draft law will also include a clause that criminalises only "genocide denial" that incites violence or hatred.
But there are fears among academics that bans simply stifle debate and do more harm than good. "One can certainly debate about whether the Turkish government intended the genocide of the Armenian people or whether it merely intended expulsion . . . It would be a great shame if this type of law were to limit debate," says Alan Kramer, professor of history at Trinity College Dublin. "Holocaust deniers are usually sensation-seeking cranks or neo-Nazis, or both. Why give them the oxygen of publicity?"
This is the question EU justice ministers will have to determine.