Westminster is simply the wrong place for a Holocaust memorial
The unanimous decision taken on Tuesday by Westminster city council’s planning hearing, to recommend refusal for a controversial Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be built in a park next to Parliament, is a clear line in the sand. This was not an easy decision to reach and, as one councillor mentioned, both approval and refusal were unsatisfactory outcomes that would leave many people disappointed. As a Jewish member of the House of Lords, however, I believe they made the right choice.
The two great themes that the speakers kept on coming back to at the hearing were a clear case of comparing apples with oranges. On one side, the conservation of London’s heritage, its green public spaces, its views and community amenities. On the other, the weight of the Holocaust tragedy, rising anti-semitism, the need for better Holocaust education, and to honour and remember in perpetuity.
What appears to be an unresolvable conflict arises due to the choice of Victoria Tower Gardens as the proposed site. The idea’s supporters argue that it is the only possible location of sufficient symbolic stature. Its detractors point out that the plan involves building a large memorial in the middle of a small park.
Environmentalists have warned that the trees there are likely to be killed off, the large crowds of people the memorial is expected to attract threaten to swamp a rare green space, and the design itself is an eyesore.
There are, however, more subtle reasons to oppose this particular scheme. Indeed, the Jewish community itself is seriously divided, much as the Government is choosing to ignore the disquiet.
It is my position, supported by many others, including highly regarded Holocaust educationalists, that building a memorial (rather than, say, a museum) will have the effect of distancing the horrors of anti-semitism, relegating them to the past, when we know very well that they remain with us to this day. The Westminster site, relying on the argument that democracy is a defence against genocide, is also misplaced. Jewish communities sometimes thrived in states that had no democracy and at other times have suffered under it. Anti-semitism is returning most strikingly in some of today’s European democracies, and in the US. It is religious and ethnic hatred that are the dangers.
People need to know the context of the Holocaust, what was destroyed by it, and how there was recovery afterwards. For this reason, the Imperial War Museum, just a mile up the road, and with its own superb Holocaust galleries, would be a far better location for the learning centre, providing much-needed contextual historical and educational information.
Experience of Holocaust memorials in other countries shows that those that do not present the tragedy in human terms do not achieve their aims. If remembering the Holocaust is not to be seen as a mere tourist attraction, forcing an inappropriate design onto an unsuitable location should not count as doing the job. The time has come for a fresh approach to the Jewish tragedy, with school education receiving better and renewed attention.
The Government is still threatening to push ahead with the plan. Instead, it must go back to the drawing board, led by historians, not politicians and celebrities. Is it too much to ask ministers to listen?