British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. Do you think he deserves this sentence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. Do you think he deserves this sentence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

He should have asked for the trial in Tehran, they probably would have given him the freedom of the city!:rolleyes:

To convict him after 16 yrs is a joke and besides what happend to free speech in Austria?.
Christ I thought it was bad enough here,but compared to the Austrian state we are quite free.

There was an Austrian academic on the radio earlier commenting on the trial and sentence. His view is that while both Austria and Germany are sensitive to things like holocaust denial understandably, he believes that by pursuing it so through the courts and all the attendant publicity that follows, is just giving Irving and people like him free publicity.

As they are so easily able to refute denials with hard evidence, in his opinion it is better to just ignore them and let them slide back under whatever stone they crawled from in the first place- seems fair comment to me.

The interview also went on to mention free speech issues and how that squares up with the row over 'the cartoons', when the Austrian press, for example, has not shied away from printing those for example.

As much as I utterly disagree with his views, I think this jailing is a joke. One of the Jewish leaders in Austria has publicly stated that it's shocking. His quote was: "I think the British way is best. You do not jail people for saying foolish or offensive things, they are just ignored or laughed at. Putting people in prison for saying things like this just turns them into martyrs or gets them publicity".

Utterly ridiculous.

Especially coming from a country who managed to have one of their countrymen, Kurt Waldheim, appointed UN Secretary General having allegedly been a Nazi Intelligence Officer in WW2.

Irving certainly lacked some academic rigour in doing some of his work, but to jail him is absolutely crazy.

Joe

I think we need a clearer understanding of why Holocaust denial is regarded as a crime in Austria.

Most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries, including Austria, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an antisemitic and anti-democratic agenda.

When Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt counted Irving among those who deny the Holocaust, David Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. In the highly-publicised trial in 2000, Irving lost both the case and any remaining reputation he had as an historian. The judge in that case upheld Lipstadt's claims about Irving "that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist".

In the Austrian court, Irving faced a maximum sentence of 10 years, but was jailed for 3. On hearing his sentence, my first thought was lucky David Irving.

Irving is not the sort of chap one might invite for tea. However, I sincerely do not believe that he should be jailed. Public ridicule would be a more appropriate punishment. No 'democratic' country should imprison a man for his views, however ludicrous or offensive. I shall send Irving a rather heavy cake.

To convict him after 16 yrs is a joke and besides what happend to free speech in Austria?.
Christ I thought it was bad enough here,but compared to the Austrian state we are quite free.

They are trying not to return to a time when you and your entire family were murdered for what you said, or indeed what they thought you might have said, or even for having the wrong coloured eyes.

The sort of people who deny the holocaust, are generally likely to also believe in some ridiculous Jewish conspiracy. In Irvings case this was that the Jews had been kept in secret locations after the war and sent to Palistine.

Since you and the BNP are very keen on free speech I would suggest you all get on the next aircraft to Austria and protest about this trial. Make sure you tell them about your own views on the Holocaust and Jewish conspiracys when you are there. Comments like these should go down well:-

But like has been said there is one ethnic group who are responsible for the continued attacks on german history and they have the worlds media in the bag,and yes I will say it is the JEWS .
This group have vested interest in making out they and only they have ever been persecuted and thats all that matters.

Here is a useful link:-

http://www.skyscanner.net/flights/country/at/cheap-flights-to-austria.html

To convict him after 16 yrs is a joke and besides what happend to free speech in Austria?.
Christ I thought it was bad enough here,but compared to the Austrian state we are quite free.
Well as an original Nazi state, they are a bit sensitive to these things. It's understandable that they may have rather strict laws. Nazi salutes get you locked up too.

However, Irving knew the score when he said these things all those years ago, and he only said them to push his luck... it backfired. It was interesting to see him crawling now he's suddenly changed his mind about the existence of gas chambers.

He may now die in a foreign prison.

Considering the subject matter it's rather ironic eh?

Whilst I find denial of the Holocaust repugnant, I find the fact it's a criminal offence in Austria, or anywhere else, ludicrous.
Mr Irving had changed his mind anyway, and no longer held to these views.

It has been suggested that the severity of the sentence imposed on Irving is more of a punishment for his contempt of the ban on his entering Austria than his holocaust denial. He'll more than likely be deported to serve his sentence in a British prison and soon thereafter released on parole.

He is banned from entering quite a few countries and not welcome here, - perhaps he should seek asylum in Iran :)

Whilst I find denial of the Holocaust repugnant, I find the fact it's a criminal offence in Austria, or anywhere else, ludicrous.
Mr Irving had changed his mind anyway, and no longer held to these views.
I thought a commonly held belief among people like Irving is that people should obey the law of the land they are in?

What's good for the goose...!

Or doesn't it apply to white people?

all sounds slightly harsh, he should be able to have his own opinions, not locked up cus he doesn't agree. I mean you don't have to take his work seriously.

I thought a commonly held belief among people like Irving is that people should obey the law of the land they are in?

What's good for the goose...!

Or doesn't it apply to white people?
Tony, I'm not sure what you're getting at at all, especially your last statement about white people??. Obviously he should have obeyed the law of the land, I'm saying I don't agree with the law in the first place, even though like I said, I find denial of the Holocaust repugnant.

I think we need a clearer understanding of why Holocaust denial is regarded as a crime in Austria.

Most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries, including Austria, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an antisemitic and anti-democratic agenda.

When Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt counted Irving among those who deny the Holocaust, David Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. In the highly-publicised trial in 2000, Irving lost both the case and any remaining reputation he had as an historian. The judge in that case upheld Lipstadt's claims about Irving "that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist".

In the Austrian court, Irving faced a maximum sentence of 10 years, but was jailed for 3. On hearing his sentence, my first thought was lucky David Irving.

I think that clears it up a bit. I suppose we cannot understand because it isn't illegal in this country. We have to respect that he broke the law in Austra and would probably have been fully aware he was facing a prison sentence when he did it.

Sorry kay_cee, I wasn't having a dig at you directly, just using your words as the starting point for mine :)

My point is that (some of) those who are upset at his conviction are also the ones who bang on about obeying the laws of the land you are in, usually in relation to 'foreigners' (ie Muslims) in the UK.

Hence the goose :)

I'm enjoying the irony of it all.

serves him right :thumbsup: just what he deserves the nazi i hope he has learn's his lesson :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Ohhh! OK, I get you - No prob Tony!;)

Well I dont agree with his views, however I do believe that people have the right to free speech, and thier own beliefs/opinions. Just because some thinks/writes about their opinions, however contravercial, it still doesn't excuse the law that has been used to convict him. Surely this infringes on his rights to freedom of speech?

serves him right just what he deserves the nazi i hope he has learn's his lesson

Has somebody hacked Craigs log in

I think there are a few issues which need to be separated.

1) The right to freedom of thought.
Once material is published, the issues becomes:

2) The right to freedom of speech
Once material similar to what Irving produced is published, the issue comes:

3) The potential to incite hatred through freedom of speech
So..

4) What did Irving actually say?
From what I've read, his main argument is that he denies the existence of the gas chambers.

It is perhaps too easy to equate Holocaust denial with anti-Semitism. Problems arguably stem from this term 'Holocaust denial'. Deniers are not usually denying the existence of the Holocuast, but rather aspects of it - numbers or events for example. There does seem overwhelmingly compelling evidence for the gas chambers, the exact number of deaths, of Jews and others (homosexuals, gypsies, disabled), does seem less concrete. It is this latter point which often fuels a denier's argument, although the justification, usually a 'Jewish consipiracy', negates any potential to take the denier seriously.

Has somebody hacked Craigs log in

no nobody's hacked my account carcrash its just that although i am a white nationalist i have no time for people with nazi views like this guy who deny thing's like the holocaust

no nobody's hacked my account carcrash its just that although i am a white nationalist i have no time for people with nazi views like this guy who deny thing's like the holocaust
Yeah , I thought it was odd too carcrash. Craigmason i think there's hope for you yet - the trouble is that despite you saying you have no time for people with Nazi views, by defining yourself as a white nationalist you are identifying yourself with a political persuasion thats full to the brim of Naxi ideology.
Do yourself a favour Craig...go to your search engine, put "Stormfront" in and take a good long look around. What do you see? White nationalism is soaked in Nazism. Then come back and let us know what you think.
Don't believe the BNP softsoap - the natural road they lead to is one of hatred, violence and extreme human suffering. Don't go there.

As others have said -

He knew what the laws in Austria were at the time.

He was declared persona non grata there.

He returned to Austria despite this status

After arrest he pleaded guilty to the charge, which was well within the Austrian statute of limitations.

He has changed his mind recently and now believes the holocaust did happen and millions of Jews were killed and incinerated.

I'm amazed that he expected mercy when all he has been doing is providing pseudointellectual fodder for the lunkhead neo-nazis and turning a profit on his books at the same time.

And doing so in the one country with the harshest penalties for the crime he committed - when he could do so elsewhere with impunity.

What an idiot masquerading as an iconoclast.

If he really believed the things he said then he must have been incredably stupid as there is so much evidence to the contrary. It is hard to believe that any accedemic could really be that stupid and so the only conclusion is that he had his own agenda.

BTW, in one of his previous trials he inadvertantly called the judge 'Mein Fuhrer' instead of 'My Lord'. True. I think it reveals his real inclinations.

As I mentioned on a previous thread some time ago, it is indeed ironic that a novelist has recently been tried in Turkey for claiming that a genocide (of Armenians by Turks in 1915) did take place whereas Irving has been tried and convicted for claiming that a genocide did not take place. The case against the Turkish novelist has recently been dropped. Its interesting that Deborah Lipstadt, who defeated Irving in the famous libel case in 2000, believes that charges should not have been brought against him.

He has changed his mind recently and now believes the holocaust did happen and millions of Jews were killed and incinerated..

Are you sure about this? I saw him on the telly just after the case and he was saying things such as (I can't recall the exact words):-

There were "some" gas chambers. When asked if millions of Jews had been killed he said something like "I don't know the exact numbers". When asked if the holacaust happened he said something similar to "I don't use trademarks but there was a Jewish tragedy".

It sounds to me that he is playing the same sort of game that we see the White Supremascists on this forum use, where they avoid direct replies and try to say that it happened but was somehow much nicer than the Jewish conspiracy would have us all believe. No doubt he will also share his real views with those that are also holocaust deniers whilst attempting to show a public face that appears to be more reasonable in the same way as we see people on this forum say one thing and then use another far right forum to vent their more extreme views.

He should have known better, silly sod.

LordChaverly - what is your avatar, mi'lud?

Utterly ridiculous.

Especially coming from a country who managed to have one of their countrymen, Kurt Waldheim, appointed UN Secretary General having allegedly been a Nazi Intelligence Officer in WW2.


Joe

Quite a few top Nazis were, of course, Austrian rather then German. Not least Hitler himself.

Well to be fare its happened here, a man was arrested in london for shouting in downing street that Blair was a fool and that the govenment didnt have a clue what it was doing..........he was given 3 years for declaring state secrets

I have emailed the Austrian Embassy to tell them what I think of this jail sentence and I hope ALL right minded people will do the same.
To Ken H sorry I aiNt got the time to go to Austria,I am too busy planning a trip to AUSCHWITZ.:hihi: :D

Have you been to Auschwitz Roy?

Roy,
LOL. You will stir the self-righteous Ken H to fury with that jibe. I often wonder if Ken suffers from what the late journalist, Auberon Waugh called 'Pilgerism'. The term refers to the 'deeply caring' journalist and broadcaster, John Pilger, who always seems to be in a state of permanent, 'righteous' indignation, lips quivering etc.

I aiNt got the time to go to Austria,I am too busy planning a trip to AUSCHWITZ.:hihi: :D

I think we can all see what kind of person you are by your use of smiley faces next to the word "AUSCHWITZ". I look forward to your less public alter ego, posting about your trip on far right forums.

Roy,
LOL. You will stir the self-righteous Ken H to fury

I don't really do "fury", I raarely get above "mildly annoyed" these days. It is just a forum you know, there is no need to take it seriously.

How much of Irving's "backpeddling" on the subject of holocaust denial is mere expediency? You know... a partial recanting of his obscene viewpoint, in order to curry favour with those prosecuting him?

"Ooh, look, Mister Judge! I'm a nice person, now.... Please don't jail me!"

I don't believe for one minute that he has moderated his views; leopards, and spots, and all that gubbins.

He just wants to make himself appear more palatable IMO.

PT

Plain Talker makes some valid observations.

An Observer newspaper investigation in 2002 found that Irving, (now a bankrupt, after his failed libel action - in which the judge convincingly declared him a Holocaust denier), found that he was being financially supported a Saudi prince and a former Nazi U-boat commander.

Irving has been banned from Germany, South Africa, Australia and Canada, and denied access to New Zeland. He was arrested and thrown out of Austria in 1984. He successfully appealed against his deportation, and returned to Austria in 1989, where many of his planned speeches were cancelled due to public protests. His 1977 book, Hitler's War, suggested that Hitler had been unaware of the Holocaust until it was well under way. This book has been widely discredited by academics around the world. On the day of his trial, and despite pleading guilty, Irving took a copy of his book into court with him. I ask, how stupid can you be?

Asked by the Observer last month why he had returned to Austria and deliberately courted trouble, Irving replied "I'm from a family of officers and I'm an Englishman. We march towards gunfire". Well, he knew the risks, and now he will pay the price - 3 years. It could have been 10. As I stated in my previous post, lucky David Irving.

I have emailed the Austrian Embassy to tell them what I think of this jail sentence and I hope ALL right minded people will do the same.


I have taken up the cudgels along with royjames! I have now written to the Austrian embassy to tell them what I too think of this jail sentence. As another right minded person, I have expressed my disgust that when the maximum sentence could have been 10 years, 3 years for Irving appears far too lenient. May I express my thanks to royjames for motivating me to join him in this protest. :thumbsup:

I have expressed my disgust that when the maximum sentence could have been 10 years, 3 years for Irving appears far too lenient. :thumbsup:

So now we all know where you stand on the issue of freedom of speech.

So now we all know where you stand on the issue of freedom of speech.

If you have read my posts elsewhere on SF, I think you will have noticed that I am a staunch upholder of the freedom of speech LordChaverly. There are though limitations on the freedom of speech, not only in Austria, but in the UK. Freedom of speech is not a license to threaten, or abuse, or slander, or incite racial harrassment.

In my first post on this thread, I carefully explained the rationale why Austria (amongst other European countries) has specific laws relating to Holocaust denial. We are entitled to disagree with those laws, for what ever reason. What we are not entitled to do is ignore the laws of another country - which, as has been demonstrated in an Austrian court of law, is what David Irving flagrently did. He admitted the charge, and is now paying the price. He could have been locked up for more than three times longer than he has been - hence, my observation, lucky David Irving.

At the of this trial, Noah Klieger, a survivor of the concentration camps, displayed a tattoo on his arm, and commented "According to this man {David Irving} I did this myself".

I understand that an SF member was recently banned from this forum for a year after posting the offensive and provocative observation that Auschwitz was apparently like a Butlins holiday camp for the Jews. It seems that even on SF, there are limitations on free speech.

If you have read my posts elsewhere on SF, I think you will have noticed that I am a staunch upholder of the freedom of speech LordChaverly. There are though limitations on the freedom of speech, not only in Austria, but in the UK. Freedom of speech is not a license to threaten, or abuse, or slander, or incite racial harrassment.

In my first post on this thread, I carefully explained the rationale why Austria (amongst other European countries) has specific laws relating to Holocaust denial. We are entitled to disagree with those laws, for what ever reason. What we are not entitled to do is ignore the laws of another country - which, as has been demonstrated in an Austrian court of law, is what David Irving flagrently did. He admitted the charge, and is now paying the price. He could have been locked up for more than three times longer than he has been - hence, my observation, lucky David Irving.

At the of this trial, Noah Klieger, a survivor of the concentration camps, displayed a tattoo on his arm, and commented "According to this man {David Irving} I did this myself".

I understand that an SF member was recently banned from this forum for a year after posting the offensive and provocative observation that Auschwitz was apparently like a Butlins holiday camp for the Jews. It seems that even on SF, there are limitations on free speech.

But the difference here is that Irving was expressing an opinion. If we take the exclusions to freedom of speech which you mention, then either they are not relevant to this case or are so wide as to present a very real danger to the principle of freedom of expression. Firstly, I don't think how expression of a view concerning a particular historical event can be construed as an example of threatening language or as an incitement to racial harrassment. If we were to impose condign punishment for the use of abusive language, most of the members of SF would probably now be languishing in one of her majesty's prisons. As for slander (or libel), well there are procedures available through the civil law for dealing with this.

The courts should have no role in what we are entitled to say about historical events. If a poll were taken among historians, I believe that the majority would express this view also (including the vast majority, including Deborah Lipstadt. and others who gave evidence in the 2000 civil case, who are fierce opponents of, and have complete contempt for, Irving). Contrary views, however wrong headed or repugnant, should be challenged and vigorously disputed, if necessary through the clash and clamour of hot opinion, not through the imposition of punishments for the expression of heretical opinions (a device resorted to by dictatorships and tyrannies of one kind or another throughout the ages).

Do yourself a favour Craig...go to your search engine, put "Stormfront" in and take a good long look around. What do you see? White nationalism is soaked in Nazism. Then come back and let us know what you think.
Don't believe the BNP softsoap - the natural road they lead to is one of hatred, violence and extreme human suffering. Don't go there.

I did this yesterday because I had never heard of Stormfront. I came across their Forum. I have never read such Nazi/Racist rubbish in my life.

They had threads such as,

What books are good for white childrens to read
Where can I buy Swastika shaped biscuit cutters
My neighbours neice is seeing a black man, should I stop talking to her.

The members were discussing these threads as easily as we discuss where we can buy cheap paint.

Although free speech is important these sort of sites are very frightening.

To Ken H sorry I aiNt got the time to go to Austria,I am too busy planning a trip to AUSCHWITZ.:hihi: :D


I really don't think this is a joking matter, Roy. Irving and other right-wingers and holocaust deniers can sanitise the "Final Solution" all they like, it doesn't alter the fact that this atrocity of the holocaust happened.

PT

But the difference here is that Irving was expressing an opinion.

Thankfully, all of history is an opinion. No-one is 'right'.

Not one of Irving's books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian

Professor Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University

If you have read my posts elsewhere on SF, I think you will have noticed that I am a staunch upholder of the freedom of speech LordChaverly. There are though limitations on the freedom of speech, not only in Austria, but in the UK. Freedom of speech is not a license to threaten, or abuse, or slander, or incite racial harrassment.

In my first post on this thread, I carefully explained the rationale why Austria (amongst other European countries) has specific laws relating to Holocaust denial. We are entitled to disagree with those laws, for what ever reason. What we are not entitled to do is ignore the laws of another country - which, as has been demonstrated in an Austrian court of law, is what David Irving flagrently did. He admitted the charge, and is now paying the price. He could have been locked up for more than three times longer than he has been - hence, my observation, lucky David Irving.

At the of this trial, Noah Klieger, a survivor of the concentration camps, displayed a tattoo on his arm, and commented "According to this man {David Irving} I did this myself".

I understand that an SF member was recently banned from this forum for a year after posting the offensive and provocative observation that Auschwitz was apparently like a Butlins holiday camp for the Jews. It seems that even on SF, there are limitations on free speech.

Sounds like the voice of reason to me..... some people cannot differentiate between free speech and incitement to commit a crime. If free speech was just that.... then why does the law we make as mankind tell us to regulate ourselves.... free speech exists but not when it is used to bring harm to others or twist the truth to feed a crime.

Thankfully, all of history is an opinion. No-one is 'right'.

Quite so Phan, but some historians are more 'right' than others (in more than one sense!) :hihi:

I see today that Francis Fukayama has undergone a Damascene conversion, and that History might not be at an end after all.

What a surprise!

I see today that Francis Fukayama has undergone a Damascene conversion, and that History might not be at an end after all.

What a surprise!

It had to happen eventually. If it really was the end of history, he'd have nothing else to blather on about, would he?

Lord Chaverly - Please tell me what your avatar is. I'm losing sleep.

I see today that Francis Fukayama has undergone a Damascene conversion, and that History might not be at an end after all.

What a surprise!

His central thesis was always rather silly (and seems even more so now), but it struck a chord at the time and launched him on a glittering career as a pundit and futurologist (with his picture on the front of Time magazine at one point). From being an obscure professor to being a internationally recognised guru and global celebrity within the space of a few months is not bad going. His story gives hope to obscure professors everywhere (all they have to do is to come up with an appealing idea which captures the mood of the moment, however daft the idea may subsequently prove to be).

Letter from today's Guardian

"David Irving need not worry too much. I've researched the matter thoroughly and concluded that the prison in Vienna doesn't exist, never did exist and certainly no one was incarcerated there."

David Rosenberg
London*

Letter from today's Guardian

"David Irving need not worry too much. I've researched the matter thoroughly and concluded that the prison in Vienna doesn't exist, never did exist and certainly no one was incarcerated there."

David Rosenberg
London*

Tee Hee. These mischievous lefties.

Lord Chaverly - Please tell me what your avatar is. I'm losing sleep.

Well Kathy, I am assuming that you have not seen Lord of the Rings and are not familiar with the heroes (or if you like anti-heroes) of the story.

Lord Chaverly - Please tell me what your avatar is. I'm losing sleep.

It's gollum with a burberry cap on. (I think)

Oh right! I have seen the film mi'lud, I just didn't recognise it. I can kind of see it now if I squint.

He should have asked for the trial in Tehran, they probably would have given him the freedom of the city!:rolleyes:

Not so royjames, report to West Bar P, only kidding honest.

My signature says it all can we trust anything written by man?

History is written by the victors.

Not so royjames, report to West Bar P, only kidding honest.

It turns out that Poland also has a law against "public denial of German war crimes". If anyone has Mr Jame's travel details can they please pass them on to me so that I can inform the Polish authorities. Anyone want to contribute towards his ticket?

It turns out that Poland also has a law against "public denial of German war crimes". If anyone has Mr Jame's travel details can they please pass them on to me so that I can inform the Polish authorities. Anyone want to contribute towards his ticket?


Thanks Ken H ,much appreciated but if its all the same to you I will pay for my own ticket to Poland,besides I wont have to worry about hotels as my partners family have kindly offerd to put us up .
OH your soooooo vindictive Ken,really you are.I cant understand you hostility to me all I am doing is telling the truth.:thumbsup:

Royjames youve made my point history is written by victors!
(doctrined the way they want it)

Thankfully, all of history is an opinion. No-one is 'right'.
Not so. History is fact.

Interpretation is opinion, and recording is suspect.

royjames history is what's written not what's happened!
propaganda
lies
truth
anything you want!

Read it again. :roll:

Not so. History is fact.

Interpretation is opinion, and recording is suspect.

History requires the selection and interpretation of significant 'facts' (it also requires a definition of what we actually mean by the term 'fact'). Our view of the world is filtered through our conceptual lenses, which themselves are value-laden and subject to various experiential and cultural influences. This is why there can be no such thing as a definitive history of anything. There indeed are plausible histories, but in my view there should never be legally sanctioned (or legally outlawed) histories.

History requires the selection and interpretation of significant 'facts' (it also requires a definition of what we actually mean by the term 'fact'). Our view of the world is filtered through our conceptual lenses, which themselves are value-laden and subject to various experiential and cultural influences. This is why there can be no such thing as a definitive history of anything. There indeed are plausible histories, but in my view there should never be legally sanctioned (or legally outlawed) histories.

I'm afraid he's right, Tony. I'm not sure about the legislation in Austria, I am quite undecided. To use LC's language, I believe the Holocaust to be a very plausible history, though, and wonder if anyone can think of any holocaust deniers who aren't playing it down because they have a stake in rehabilitating fascist politics, presumably with a view to "finishing the job" at some point?

You're talking of the semantics of dictionary definitions and I'm quite happy to cede to those :)

It doesn't change the core point. Facts are facts are facts. Their recording and interpretation is the only matter for debate. My, how much better we might all be without academic distortion for intellectual or monetary gain. ;)

Facts are facts are facts. Their recording and interpretation is the only matter for debate.

Tony, You are beginning to sound like a caricature of Thomas Gradgrind, the proprietor of the 'school of hard facts' in Dickens' 'Hard Times'. Gradgrind's educational philosophy appears to be in tune with your own:

'NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!'

A caricature? There you go distorting the reality LC :D

It's fortunate that we have lots of academics to give us their invaluable opinions isn't it? I rather like these thoughts put back to back:

- If you only tell the truth you don't need to remember your lies.
- If we only had facts we wouldn't need academics to tell us about them.

David Irving considers himself an academic.

;)

Driver of a stolen car,that knocks down and kills a three year old
gets 12 weeks prison(Now that's real justice for you )

Irving is a maverick character and must have known what he was letting himself in for when he decided to visit Austria again. Individuals like him make the world a more enriched and vibrant place, however. Kevin MacDonald, a psychology academic who testified for Irving in the libel trial in 2000, said of Irving and his opponent Deborah Lipstadt:
"He has, in short, many of the qualitities of the most creative historians. He is certainly never dull. Prof Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again. Mr Irving, if he will only learn from this case, still has much that is interesting to tell us".

60 years on from the second world war we ought to be able to engage in a calm appraisal of the holocaust issue. I have not personally researched the issue and am not able to give any sort of an authoritative opinion on it. My starting belief would be that things did broadly happen in line with the conventional account (and so I would regard "holocaust denial" as an extreme position). However, if robust evidence were brought forward I would be open-minded to the possibility that things happened on a different scale and in a slightly different way to the conventional accounts (what one might call "holocaust revisionism").

I am perturbed that the "h" card continues to be liberally played in order to try to close down discussion. A recent example concerned the Church of England's proposal to disinvest from the Caterpillar digger company [whose vehicles are used by Israel]. This was arguably a loony PC decision by the C of E but, on the other hand, a spokesman for the Chief Rabbi managed to weave in a reference to 'genocide' in criticising this.

You're talking of the semantics of dictionary definitions and I'm quite happy to cede to those :)

It doesn't change the core point. Facts are facts are facts. Their recording and interpretation is the only matter for debate. My, how much better we might all be without academic distortion for intellectual or monetary gain. ;)

Good grief, get the man an epistemologist, and quick!

My starting belief would be that things did broadly happen in line with the conventional account (and so I would regard "holocaust denial" as an extreme position). However, if robust evidence were brought forward I would be open-minded to the possibility that things happened on a different scale and in a slightly different way to the conventional accounts (what one might call "holocaust revisionism").
Which makes Irvings starting point of denial such a bizzare proposition to the real world.

Which brings us nicely back to the idea that he is either promoting an agenda where lies sit at the core of some (dark) purpose.

- Or that he is quite mad.

I honestly don't know which it is.

Good grief, get the man an epistemologist, and quick!
Phan you scamp. :nono: We appear to have plenty of those around here, but I'll stick to doing my own thinking if that's ok with you ;)

But the difference here is that Irving was expressing an opinion. If we take the exclusions to freedom of speech which you mention, then either they are not relevant to this case or are so wide as to present a very real danger to the principle of freedom of expression. Firstly, I don't think how expression of a view concerning a particular historical event can be construed as an example of threatening language or as an incitement to racial harrassment. If we were to impose condign punishment for the use of abusive language, most of the members of SF would probably now be languishing in one of her majesty's prisons. As for slander (or libel), well there are procedures available through the civil law for dealing with this.

The courts should have no role in what we are entitled to say about historical events. If a poll were taken among historians, I believe that the majority would express this view also (including the vast majority, including Deborah Lipstadt. and others who gave evidence in the 2000 civil case, who are fierce opponents of, and have complete contempt for, Irving). Contrary views, however wrong headed or repugnant, should be challenged and vigorously disputed, if necessary through the clash and clamour of hot opinion, not through the imposition of punishments for the expression of heretical opinions (a device resorted to by dictatorships and tyrannies of one kind or another throughout the ages).

I take on board the well argued points which you assert Lord Chaverly. All free-thinking people will place a high value on upholding freedom of expression. That though is not the issue in this trial.

We are discussing a specific Holocaust denial law enacted in Austria. Austria needed to confront its past, and to deter those who seek to justify or glorify it, as well as preventing those who would seek to undermine its post-WW2 democracy. The Holocaust denial laws in Austria are intended to prevent the legitimation of mass murder. It is within this context that we should view the trial of David Irving, and not on the grounds of the supression of free speech.

The evidence against David Irving was based on his assertions - made whilst he was on Austrian soil - that the Nazis did not use gas chambers to exterminate the Jews, and for stating that Hitler was innocent of that crime against humanity. Irving is a descredited author. He never was an academic historian. His book, Hitler's War, has been comprehensively exposed as a work of fiction, devoid of historical accuracy. His outpourings have been consistent with his neo-Nazi sympathies. He has attempted to rehabilitate Hitler and the third Reich, and when accused by a reputable historian of being a Holocaust denier, he sued and lost.

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism, as I explained in more detail in my first post on this thread. We may not like this law, but as a liberal democracy, we should at least try and understand why Holocaust denial is viewed as a race hate crime in Austria (and other European countries, including Germany). I will defend the freedom of speech, but as I have previously stated, there are limitations on the freedom of speech, and in Austria, Holocaust denial is a specific limitation.

No man is above the law, and we should respect the right of Austria to uphold their laws on anti-Semitism. David Irving returned to Austria, (to address a right-wing group), in the full knowledge that there was an arrest warrant waiting for him. He pleaded guilty, (albeit probably in the hope of obtaining a lighter sentence), and is now paying the price. I've repeatedly referred to Irving being lucky given that he only received a 3 year sentence. Now the Austrian State Prosecutor has lodged an appeal against his light sentence, maybe he won't be so lucky after all, as the maximum sentence is 10 years.

60 years on from the second world war we ought to be able to engage in a calm appraisal of the holocaust issue. I have not personally researched the issue and am not able to give any sort of an authoritative opinion on it. My starting belief would be that things did broadly happen in line with the conventional account (and so I would regard "holocaust denial" as an extreme position). .

This is being discussed and has been thoroughly researched since the war. Different researchers will disagree about figures since it is impossible to be exactly accurate. What is known for certain is that the Germans killed millions of people, many by gassing, many by shooting and a great many by starving them until they died of hunger or disease. In countries such as Germany, Poland and Austria (and others) the majority of the victims were Jews. If academics wish to argue amongst themselves whether 1.X million or 2.x million were gassed then really that doesn't alter the fact that the Germans decided to build a factory system to kill people in vast numbers. There is sufficient proof available of the minimum numbers that were killed in each camp and it is also possible to calculate or estiamte a more likely figure.

Where genuine discussion gets to a point of being unacceptable is where the extreme right want to try to demonstrate that Hitler didn't really know about it all as he was a nice bloke who liked children and animals. The evidence of mass murder is so great that it is virtually impossible to deny it took place so some extremists have taken to thinking of a small number and saying that X thousand might have died but that the Jews then got together to create an international conspiracy to move the survivors to Miami. Aside from the physical evidence, the Germans loved to keep records and many remain.

It should also be borne in mind that the German and Austrian governments have paid pensions to camp survivors,and even ghetto survivors, and have paid some compensation for confiscated property. If we know the number of Jews in Germany before the war and the number claiming pensions or compensation afterwards then some estimates can be made of those that didn't survive. That is unless the far right can explain why a Jew wouldn't claim money which would seem rather at odds with their stereotype wouldn't it?

Oooo, the irony compounds! So now he may get a different final solution to the one he expected... like all those extermination camp victims!

You make some good points there redrobbo. I can't help myself thinking that a law that would look strange in the UK is justified as a consequential overreaction by a former Nazi root state. In time their wounds will heal but for the foreseeable future it's an understandable national attitude.

Irving had a simple choice. Instead he chose to confront his outstanding arrest warrant. The outcome was inevitable.

redrobbo and KenH, you have convinced me, and the epistemologist who lives in my head!

I hope he dies in prison, preferrably the day before he is due to be released.

...and the epistemologist who lives in my head!.
You've got numbskulls too, just like me :)


(You have to be the right age)

You've got numbskulls too, just like me :)


(You have to be the right age)

Sorry Tony, either that was devilishly subtle, or it's too early in the morning :confused:

They obviously passed you over TeaFan ;)

http://uk.geocities.com/pjgtompatterson/numbskulls.html

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. Do you think he deserves this sentence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

When I was at school there was never a mention of the Holocaust in history lessons, older family members never spoke of it and there wasn't any TV coverage about it. Only the arrest and trial of Adolf Eichmann brought the atrocities to the attention of the public and even then many didn't believe it happened.

However when the truth came out in the media the memories of witnesses unlocked, I met ex members of the forces who helped liberate the camps and a Jewish survivor. I was just a teenager at the time but I had the intelligence to balance all the evidence and come to the conclusion that these awful events actually happened.

So why did a seemingly intelligent person like David Irving believe the Holocaust to be a complete fabrication? All the best movie people would be hard pressed to replicate the looks on the faces of the people walking to their deaths that we have all seen by way of photographs and film clippings that experts said were genuine.

The teaching of history in this country is a bit strange or at least it was 20 years ago when I was doing it. I did 20th C history and we did some bits on the first world war, the russian revolutions, the welfare state and the build up to the 2nd world war and hitlers rise to power rather than the war itself.

An excellent article on the subject which references both Lipstadt and Irving.

http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2%20Subjects/Ethics/holocaustdenial.htm

Z

When I was at school there was never a mention of the Holocaust in history lessons, older family members never spoke of it and there wasn't any TV coverage about it. Only the arrest and trial of Adolf Eichmann brought the atrocities to the attention of the public and even then many didn't believe it happened.

However when the truth came out in the media the memories of witnesses unlocked, I met ex members of the forces who helped liberate the camps and a Jewish survivor. I was just a teenager at the time but I had the intelligence to balance all the evidence and come to the conclusion that these awful events actually happened.

So why did a seemingly intelligent person like David Irving believe the Holocaust to be a complete fabrication? All the best movie people would be hard pressed to replicate the looks on the faces of the people walking to their deaths that we have all seen by way of photographs and film clippings that experts said were genuine.

This is the nub, Crookesey. Why would he do it? Do we assume that the motivation of holocaust deniers is to rehabilitate fascism? And if so, doesn't that suggest that they might want a second go at wiping out Jews?

To me, whether it's proper that Austrian law jails Irving for his views is a matter for Austrian law. However, some might argue Irving should be jailed for calling himself a historian.

As I understand it, historians study history at an academic level. They analyze relevant primary and secondary evidence and, hopefully make conclusions that further our understanding of why we are.

Irving, on the other hand, played down the buckets of spoken, written, and filmed evidence that pointed to the deliberate targetting of certain peoples and even claimed some of it was rigged. He pointed instead to weak conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated testimonies from discredited or anonymous witnesses and used these to conclude that the Holocaust was not a deliberate endeavour but the unfortunate consequences of badly thought out relocation or forced-labour policies.

I think it's a misconception to argue Irving has been jailed for a belief. As the libel trial showed Holocaust deniers deliberately manipulate or even fabricate evidence to suit their propaganda that Jews control the world. The clearest indication if this is that Irving's 'research' was funded by a group of very nasty far right groups purely becasue it would serve their anti-Semitic aims.

And wasn't he in Austria at the time to speak at a neo-Nazi rally? He really isn't the quant little eccentric aspects of the media make him out to be, he's a dangerous vile man and I hope the prosecutors are successful in increasing his jail time.

Disco Cat,
I agree with you that Irving is not 'a quaint little eccentric' academic , quietly, disinterestedly investigating phenomena. He certainly has addressed audiences of Far Right political sympathisers and 'historical revisionists' with fascist leanings. However, that does not alter the plain fact that he has been jailed for his beliefs. The expression of beliefs [in this case an 'off beam' opinion to say the very least, and one which the majority find grossly offensive] should be tolerated in any society which [forgive the reification] dares to call itself 'democratic'.

Irving's views may or may not reflect a murderous desire on his part to once again hear the 'Dogs of Europe' howl. That is irrelevant. He cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Irving is merely scattering words to the wind, not incendiary devices. He has never been found guilty of mistreating or planning to mistreat people of Jewish origin in any way. His views stand as challenges to be proven or disproven. They are sublimely fatuous, one admits, but not in themselves 'dangerous'. It is the demented fools who take such words as an excuse for anti-semitism that present a danger. Irving cannot be held responsible for their oafish, vile actions.

If one can be jailed for denying 'the Holocaust', what next? There will be no room for any relativistic approaches to history, merely official, absolutist versions approved of by the Big State. Were I unutterably foolish enough to publicly deny that millions were murdered under Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, I would expect to lose all academic credibility. I might also expect to endure ridicule, mockery and well-deserved humiliation. I would not expect to lose my liberty. Nor, in truth, would I. What, therefore, is so very special and different about denial of the Jewish 'Holocaust'? The fact that such public denial is illegal in certain countries contributes greatly, in my view, to suspicions that the governments of the West are in thrall to Zionism.

He cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Irving is merely scattering words to the wind, not incendiary devices. He has never been found guilty of mistreating or planning to mistreat people of Jewish origin in any way. His views stand as challenges to be proven or disproven. They are sublimely fatuous, one admits, but not in themselves 'dangerous'. It is the demented fools who take such words as an excuse for anti-semitism that present a danger. Irving cannot be held responsible for their oafish, vile actions.



It depends on his intent, doesn't it? Isn't this how "incitement" legislation is framed? If it can be shown that his intent is to motivate people to anti-semitic behaviour, than the law may view that as incitement to racial hatred.

I'm reminded of the Hindu nationalist fanatics of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. Their members are rather prone to tipping up in a town or village, delivering incendiary speeches to the assembled crowd, who then coincidentally nip down to the local Mosque/Church/Convent and set about them. By which time the BJP man is 10 miles away, claiming it's "nothing to do with me, guv".

This is the nub, Crookesey. Why would he do it? Do we assume that the motivation of holocaust deniers is to rehabilitate fascism? And if so, doesn't that suggest that they might want a second go at wiping out Jews?

I suppose the Austrians could repatriate him by way of a flight that touched down for re fueling in Israel.

Teafan,
Frankly, I think the law on 'incitement' [to coin a cliche] is an ass. It effectively, on one hand, denies or underestimates the capacity of individual social actors for agency/free will [i.e, not everyone who listens to Irving will start their own version of 'Crystal Night'], and on the other hand, illegitimately attributes a form of reified , post-human agency to the belief systems of individuals [i.e, words are not social actors capable in themselves of formulating and acting upon decisions, and possess no 'power' aside from that which individuals symbolically assign to them]. In short, Irving's words are only words, when all said and done. It is not his responsibility for how individuals choose to interpret, use or twist them. I find the idea of vicarious responsibility frightening. If 'Holocaust denial' ever becomes punishable by imprisonment here, it will signal the death of humane, liberal, bourgeois culture and the birth of a new, puritan Britain in which Dissenters will have to watch their backs. I, for one, do not wish to live in such a society.

I agree with you, timo, about the new incitement laws, they're ridiculous. You'd think I'd be just the type to agree with them as well.

However, Irving (much like the law) is also an ass - what kind of numpty goes to Austria to deny the holocaust!

I agree with you, timo, about the new incitement laws, they're ridiculous. You'd think I'd be just the type to agree with them as well.

However, Irving (much like the law) is also an ass - what kind of numpty goes to Austria to deny the holocaust!

kathy, I would proffer...

"what kind of numpty goes BACK to Austria, to deny the holocaust, especially one that has already gotten himself into the deepest of deep-deep do-doo by publicly denying the holocaust, and getting himself put under a sentence/ arrest warrant (-whichever it was) by doing so, anyway!"

good old Irv- "I fought the law, and the ... law won!" - ing!

PT

On the contrary, Kathy, I thought that you would be against the new laws as much as I am. Your views tend to reflect the left/liberal consensus, but they are always sensible. I have dissented from your opinion on occasion, but always respected [and liked] the clever mind behind the postings. I know that you share my distaste for needless, meddling, ill-thought through legislation like the 'incitement' laws.

I agree that Irving has been a 'numpty'. LOL. His choice of Austria is almost funny. Maybe he asked for Australia at Easy Jet?

I agree that Irving has been a 'numpty'. LOL. His choice of Austria is almost funny. Maybe he asked for Australia at Easy Jet?
Australia wouldn't have been much good either - he would have been deported as PNG.

I agree with you, timo, about the new incitement laws, they're ridiculous. You'd think I'd be just the type to agree with them as well.

However, Irving (much like the law) is also an ass - what kind of numpty goes to Austria to deny the holocaust!

I think that this was a gamble that went badly wrong, he expected something like a suspended sentence. What he has gained is a lot of publicity but never expected the result that he got. However where there is publicity there is most often financial gain, could it be that he was simply in it for the money?

Irving has now changed his mind again (as if he had in the first place)

During his trial in Austria, Irving said he had changed his mind over claims the Holocaust did not happen.

But, speaking from his cell, he asked BBC News why, if such a programme existed, "so many survived".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4757506.stm

I hope the Austrians lengthen his sentence.

Why should he deserve no sentence just because he's a limey in Austria who acted in contempt of their laws/court. If he'd done that in this country he could expect a tougher sentence from the beaks rather than leniency.

If he'd done that in this country he could expect a tougher sentence from the beaks rather than leniency.

You are mistaken. He would not have been even charged in this country, because we have no such law (nor should we have).

You are mistaken. He would not have been even charged in this country, because we have no such law (nor should we have).

LC I dont know what you are talking about but in the UK "Contempt of Court" is still a criminal offence. Although I could be mistaken it would appear to me that the defendant in this matter was in contempt of the Court and the Austrian law by acting in the manner that they did. Although the Court has the right to decide how to pass sentence in such matters, in the UK the Judge is entitled to send the offender down.

LC I dont know what you are talking about but in the UK "Contempt of Court" is still a criminal offence. Although I could be mistaken it would appear to me that the defendant in this matter was in contempt of the Court and the Austrian law by acting in the manner that they did. Although the Court has the right to decide how to pass sentence in such matters, in the UK the Judge is entitled to send the offender down.

He was jailed for 'holocaust denial', which is not a criminal offence in the UK

so what LC. Forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood but am I correct in assuming that we may take it that on the basis of your arguments that the UK CPS etc acted in an entirely inappropriate manner in their pursuit of Biggs for his part in the Great Train Robbery??? Cheers

so what LC. Forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood but am I correct in assuming that we may take it that on the basis of your arguments that the UK CPS etc acted in an entirely inappropriate manner in their pursuit of Biggs for his part in the Great Train Robbery??? Cheers

I must confess to be mystified by the above sentence. Despite my most earnest efforts to ellucidate its meaning, including close textual exegesis in a forlorn search for coherence, I fail to see how it has any bearing at all on what I have said.

Lord C,
Why not send wendygs the latest prospectus for Central University Neepsend Tip Site. She might be interested in our B.A[Hons] programme in Unintelligibility Studies run by Prof.Gavitri Patterpong?

so what LC. Forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood but am I correct in assuming that we may take it that on the basis of your arguments that the UK CPS etc acted in an entirely inappropriate manner in their pursuit of Biggs for his part in the Great Train Robbery??? Cheerswendy, the great train robbery has nothing to do with holocaust denial thats bieng discussed on this thread, are you posting in error? :confused:

I don't think that Irving should have been sent down. I can understand why the holocaust denial laws were originally introduced in Austria, but I don't think they should still be in existence now. Denying the holocaust within 10-20 years of Hitler's death could have potentially incited a movement back to nazism and caused great emotional pain to survivors, but WWII ended 60 years ago. We should now be at the stage where we can openly discuss it and no viewpoints are taboo.

Irving is an idiot, but idiots should be debated with, beaten by academic logic and embarrassed in public. They shouldn't be locked up, however offensive their views are. Irving was humiliated in his original libel case, and since then has been a laughable figure. He could quite easily have been further embarrassed in the media, then used as an example for all subsequent far-right "historians" and activists. If done correctly, he could have been used to humiliate and caricature the entire far-right movement.

:(

Content Deleted

Gosh, Wendygs, I didn't realise that you had a 'thesis' to offer. Only the cleverest people have one of those. Lord C and I [as Dean and Vice-Chancellor, respectively] therefore offer you the position of Chair in Unintelligibility Studies at Central University Neepsend Tip Site.

Mod note:

Thanks for the diversion, but if you've all quite finished trying to score meaningless academic points can we get back to the topic of the 'academic' David Irving?

Thanks.

Right in view of Tony's intervention and my last post in which I quite clearly stated my limited availability with related time constraints over the next 2-3 months, I've decided not to waste any further time in meaningless and facile debate with TLC* on an issue which isnt going anywhere and will not achieve anything.

Tony,
Don't be so damned serious all the time! We are pulling her leg, in a good-natured way. Why assume that we are so inadequate as to need to 'score academic points'? Sheffield Forum, God knows, wouldn't be the appropriate arena for that. I'm getting seriously tired of your self-righteousness. If you want to hit back and ban me, so be it. Yesterday, I was libelled on a thread, forgave the poster, and continued in good humour to post. Don't take everything so SERIOUSLY.

Tony,
Don't be so damned serious all the time! We are pulling her leg, in a good-natured way. Why assume that we are so inadequate as to need to 'score academic points'? Sheffield Forum, God knows, wouldn't be the appropriate arena for that. I'm getting seriously tired of your self-righteousness. If you want to hit back and ban me, so be it. Yesterday, I was libelled on a thread, forgave the poster, and continued in good humour to post. Don't take everything so SERIOUSLY.

According to T's statement there is a major omission.

The offending SF user made a Full and public apology (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=93654) which may be an all time first for SF.

Regrettably Tony, in his most profound wisdom closed that thread before it was possible to establish whether that apology met all of your concerns. From my review of the thread I think Tony's judgment was entirely sound.

As you have chosen to raise the matter here, please be kind enough to let us know whether that apology does satisfy your concerns and if not what else remains to be said without any further delay.

Wendy,
Come off it, for God's sake. I have forgiven the poster concerned, and accept that he had mistaken me for someone else. The point I'm making is that if I can still retain a sense of humour after character defamation, then so can you and Tony.

You both are a pair of miseries at times. Back to Irving. I reiterate what I said earlier; if ' Holocaust denial' ever becomes a punishable offence in Britain, it will be the death of humane, bourgeois, liberal culture. We shall all have to be terribly careful about dissenting from 'official', 'State' opinion. Are there some things beyond contestation? Absolute, intrinsic truths which cannot ever be questioned? Those of the view that Irving should be punished appear to think so. What good will a prison sentence for the historian achieve? Is he supposed to reflect upon his 'crimes'? He may reflect upon the idiocy of denying the mass murder of Jews on Austrian soil, but Irving has serious doubts about the Holocaust. His recent 'backpeddling' came across as insincere. Incarceration will not change the way Irving thinks. All the jail sentence will achieve is the satisfactiion of the appetites of those who harbour a low taste for draconian punishment. In my experience, this usually stems from some tedious, repressed sexual neurosis. Ho ho.

Wendy,
Come off it, for God's sake. I have forgiven the poster concerned, and accept that he had mistaken me for someone else. The point I'm making is that if I can still retain a sense of humour after character defamation, then so can you and Tony.

You both are a pair of miseries at times. Back to Irving. I reiterate what I said earlier; if ' Holocaust denial' ever becomes a punishable offence in Britain, it will be the death of humane, bourgeois, liberal culture. We shall all have to be terribly careful about dissenting from 'official', 'State' opinion. Are there some things beyond contestation? Absolute, intrinsic truths which cannot ever be questioned? Those of the view that Irving should be punished appear to think so. What good will a prison sentence for the historian achieve? Is he supposed to reflect upon his 'crimes'? He may reflect upon the idiocy of denying the mass murder of Jews on Austrian soil, but Irving has serious doubts about the Holocaust. His recent 'backpeddling' came across as insincere. Incarceration will not change the way Irving thinks. All the jail sentence will achieve is the satisfactiion of the appetites of those who harbour a low taste for draconian punishment. In my experience, this usually stems from some tedious, repressed sexual neurosis. Ho ho.


Delighted to hear you've accepted his apology which wasnt clear from your earlier statement. I also like a bit of fun but just not interested in being drawn in to low level slanging matches and I think Tony's concern was to avoid that degeneration.

Back on topic, I havent got a clue what good a prison sentence will achieve for this putative historian or anyone else convicted of a criminal offence. As a general all-round apolitical softie I am unsure whether prison serves any useful purpose in most cases.

And before anyone shoots me down on that point let me be quite clear when I sat through highly offensive sex offender trials a while back, I considered the Judge in passing sentence, was extremely lenient but had his hands tied by the "Government which in its wisdom has decided" the duration of the sentence for this type of crime. I am afraid the exact words elude me but that is the gist of his most refined sentiments re the abhorrent actions of the offender before him.

I still think this debate over Irving's facile statements and opinions serve no useful purpose because there is nothing I, or indeed you, can do to influence the Austrian legal or judicial system.

The fact remains that Irving did not help himself by mouthing off as he did. In my view the Austrian Court imprisoned him not for his actions 17 years ago but for his contempt of court and the law of Austrian land during this trial.

As to what that putative historian does while bunged up, quite frankly I do not give a damn.

The fact remains that Irving did not help himself by mouthing off as he did. In my view the Austrian Court imprisoned him not for his actions 17 years ago but for his contempt of court and the law of Austrian land during this trial.

As to what that putative historian does while bunged up, quite frankly I do not give a damn.


Wendy, shouldn't this be 'banged up', or do you know something about conditions in the Austrian penal system which we are not aware of?

Irving was not jailed 'for contempt of court', he was jailed for holocaust denial. I suggest you read the 22 page transcript of the charges levelled against him and also the actual verdict. I have no idea why you continue to believe otherwise.

Lord C,
I share your bafflement, my dear chum. Public denial of 'the Holocaust' is punishable by law in Austria. Plain and simple. That is why Irving is 'bunged up', sorry, 'banged up' for anti-semitic blaggings too numerous to mention, guvner.

Because if the git had kept his flaming gob shut, engaged his stupid brain to keep it firmly closed and let his briefs do all the talking he'd have probably ended up with a 3 years suspended sentence and directions to stay out of Austria. As it is I suspect his gross arrogance influenced the proceedings against him. I do regret the body language can not be recorded in the transcripts of proceedings or judgment.

As for the 22 page transcript of proceedings and judgment if it's the same as what happens in this country I'm not prepared to waste my time.

If I had any fears that Irving would learn the error of his ways, these have now been allayed unreservedly by this latest announcement Irving barred from speaking to the Press (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1725593,00.html?gusrc=rss)

Seems that David Irving is not the only one who thinks its all a myth.
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/004445.html

Davis Irving?

Seems that Davis Irving is not the only one who thinks its all a myth.
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/004445.html

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the Iranian press Roy.... even if you have more, politically, in common with them than the press in this country.

Davis Irving?

ooops sorry about that Timo.:hihi:

Seems that David Irving is not the only one who thinks its all a myth.
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/004445.html

Quote from Roy on another thread -

"I bet those who died fighting for freedom are turning in their graves at the way this country is going down the pan."


Spot on Roy - they must be turning in their graves when people try to whitewash the atrocities of WW2.

Thankfully, all of history is an opinion. No-one is 'right'.

Not when it's in living memory and there are people who saw their family die like this.
To hell with politics - If this is allowed to be lost in a wave of sanitation by far right wing idiots we could end up seeing again.
It's bad for the direct victims and almost as bad for the indirect victims - that's the population of the country that ends up with these nutters in power.

The far right and the far left have one thing in common - they always naff up the country they are in control of.

I don't think that Irving should have been sent down. I can understand why the holocaust denial laws were originally introduced in Austria, but I don't think they should still be in existence now. Denying the holocaust within 10-20 years of Hitler's death could have potentially incited a movement back to nazism and caused great emotional pain to survivors, but WWII ended 60 years ago. We should now be at the stage where we can openly discuss it and no viewpoints are taboo.

:(


Are you seriously suggesting that this Holocaust denial doesnt cause great emotional pain and very deep offence to the remaining survivors and their offspring even 60 years down the line?????

Are you seriously suggesting that this Holocaust denial doesnt cause great emotional pain and very deep offence to the remaining survivors and their offspring even 60 years down the line?????

It does indeed wendygs.

From my post on this thread of 22 February 2006.....

At the of this trial, Noah Klieger, a survivor of the concentration camps, displayed a tattoo on his arm, and commented "According to this man {David Irving} I did this myself".

It does indeed wendygs.

From my post on this thread of 22 February 2006.....

More alarming still is the story I was recently told of an elderly lady who as a patient in a Swiss hospital had her nurse say to her.

And I quote verbatim what I was informed the nurse then went on to say which is as follows:


How very convenient that you've put your phone number on your arm.


For the avoidance of all possible doubt that phone number was this patient's Auschwitz registration number.

I understand that prior to this event, this patient had not previously wished to discuss her trials and tribulations at the hands of the Nazis.

You could say that this was the turning point which obviously included an apology from the Hospital's senior administration.

Furthermore I have yet to hear of anyone going in to denial over the horrors and the scale which Japanese POWs suffered during WWII.