Holocaust Denier Irving Freed

By allowing his own opinions to interfere with the way he interprets historical data, Irvine has only done what most other historians do, albeit to a more extreme degree.

If this is to be a criminal offence, where do you draw the line? Should British historians who play down the more shameful episodes in our colonial past also be sent to the gulag?

By allowing his own opinions to interfere with the way he interprets historical data, Irvine has only done what most other historians do, albeit to a more extreme degree.

 

If this is to be a criminal offence, where do you draw the line? Should British historians who play down the more shameful episodes in our colonial past also be sent to the gulag?

Or British Historians who claim that there is nothing good about our colonial past, for that matter?

Stalin would have loved this!

Or British Historians who claim that there is nothing good about our colonial past, for that matter?

 

Stalin would have loved this!

One way you please Hitler, the other you please Stalin. So everyone should be forced to express moderate views at all times - on pain of death by crucifiction.

What Irving said was wrong but he shouldn't have been jailed for it. You don't jail Nazi sympathisers, you point and laugh at them. Even Deborah Lipstadt who intellectually jousted with him at Irving's libel trial against her in 2000 didn't think he should have been jailed for his comments.

One way you please Hitler, the other you please Stalin. So everyone should be forced to express moderate views at all times - on pain of death by crucifiction.

'crucifiction'?

This is the best one word description of Christian history, doctrine and eschatology that I have ever come across. Well done.

'crucifiction'?

 

This is the best one word description of Christian history, doctrine and eschatology that I have ever come across. Well done.

Sorry, I meant cross I fix I on.

I'm glad Irving has been released.

 

Legislation in this area is anachronistic, as Timothy Garton Ash argued in a recent article in The Guardian:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1925401,00.html

How about six million historical truths. We know it happened, aside from a few arm band wearers who would like to pull the wool over our collective eyes...it is Irving that is anachronistic, he longs to be in Germany during the thirties and forties. No decent person that would describe themselves as a 'historian' given the weight of evidence would ever deny the holocaust took place. Historians are interested in why and how it happened, not IF.

There are laws in society to stop incitement to hatred etc. You cannot simply say anything you want against innocent people who have been murdered in cold blood.

As for some posters suggesting that the countries that have signed up for holocaust denial legislation are themselves repressive...I think this has more to do with the fact that the holocaust took place on their home soil and they wish for it never to happen again.

Will Irving go round spouting his denial views again in public - I do not think so, therefore the legisaltion for me - works. Send that boy to jail:thumbsup:

I strongly feel that to imprison someone for holding a view is inexcusable. There are many people with whom I do not agree, and this guy is one of them, but I maintain that they are entitled to believe what they like.

But what really bugs me is that people say that this sort of legislation is to prevent similar atrocities happening in the future .... well, day in, day out, most of us manage to ignore numerous similar atrocities that are currently ongoing worldwide. Darfur, anyone?!

There are laws in society to stop incitement to hatred etc. You cannot simply say anything you want against innocent people who have been murdered in cold blood.

Actually you can, because it's impossible to incite hatred against someone who's already dead.

If I want to argue that the Holocaust never happened, I should have every right to do so. If you want to argue that it did, then so should you. Which of us is right is neither here nor there; the evidence will determine that, and it will, of course, be you, since arguing it never happened will make me look like an utter bloody idiot.

Suppressing an opinion is bad no matter WHAT the opinion may be. Those who espouse it can then claim that they are being denied an opportunity to speak, which gives their cause credibility. If what they had to say was utter gibberish, nobody would be so scared of it as to try to stamp it out; and it it wasn't utter gibberish, then it would be criminal to stamp it out. So either way, let him speak.

I think we ought to be careful though about setting too fine a distinction between 'proper' historians and the rest.

Bias is one thing, but a court did find that he'd deliberately manipulated source material in order to make his racist views seem more like historical fact. Surely once you've done that, you can't be taken seriously as a historian. Joan Peters would be another fine example.

Irving and the other holocaust deniers should not go to prison they should be allowed to debate their vile opinions with real historians then face public ridicule when shown to be liars and frauds , locking up these morons gives them the oxegeon of publicity as this case shows without destroying this growing myth .

Irving and the other holocaust deniers should not go to prison they should be allowed to debate their vile opinions with real historians then face public ridicule when shown to be liars and frauds , locking up these morons gives them the oxegeon of publicity as this case shows without destroying this growing myth .

Sorry to have to break it to you, but Nick Griffin is a holocaust denier.