Writer jailed for breaking holocaust denial law.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/AntiSemi/7109.htm

Irving charged in Austria with violating Holocaust denial laws
By Associated Press November 24, 2005


British historian David Irving was
charged Tuesday with violating an
Austrian law that makes Holocaust
denial in this formerly Nazi-ruled
nation a crime.

Irving, a controversial Third Reich
scholar who has claimed that Adolf
Hitler knew nothing about the systematic
slaughter of 6 million Jews,

was detained Nov. 11 in the southern
province of Syria on a warrant issued
in 1989.

"A charge was filed in relation to
two speeches in 1989 in which he
denied the existence of gas chambers,"

prosecutor Otto Schneider said.

The speeches were delivered in Vienna
and in the southern town of Lebanon.

If convicted,
Irving faces up to 10 years in prison.

Irving, 67,
who remains in custody in Vienna,
has the right to appeal the charges.

His attorney, Elmar Kresbach,
said he would discuss the charges
with his client Wednesday and then
decide how to proceed.

A detention hearing will be held Friday
to determine whether he should be held
for up to four more weeks, Schneider said.

It was unclear when a trial could start,
but Schneider said it might not be before next year.

After his arrest,
Irving supporters posted a statement on
his Web site saying he was detained while
on a one-day visit to Vienna,

where they said he had been invited
"by courageous students to address
an ancient university association."

Irving in the past has faced allegations
of spreading anti-Semitic and racist ideas.

He is the author of nearly 30 books,
including "Hitler's War,"
which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.


Besides his assertion that Hitler
knew nothing about the Holocaust,
he also has been quoted as saying
there was "not one shred of evidence"
that the Nazis carried out their
"Final Solution" on such a scale.

The historian has said he does not
deny Jews were killed by the Nazis,
but challenges the number and manner
of Jewish concentration camp deaths.

He has questioned the use of large-scale
gas chambers to exterminate the Jews and
has claimed that the numbers of those who
perished are far lower than those generally
accepted.

He also contends that most Jews who
died at Auschwitz did so from diseases
like typhus, not gas poisoning.

Irving has had numerous run-ins
with the law over the years.

In 1992,
a judge in Germany fined him the
equivalent of US$6,000 for publicly
insisting the Nazi gas chambers at
Auschwitz were a hoax.

In March,

more than 200 historians from
around the world petitioned
U.S. cable television network
C-SPAN to cancel a project that
would have included a speech by
Irving as a counterpoint to a
lecture by Deborah Lipstadt,
a Holocaust expert.

Irving once sued Lipstadt for libel
for calling him a Holocaust denier.

The British court handling the case
in 2000 declared that Irving could
be labeled as such,

and that he was anti-Semitic,
racist and misrepresented
historical information.
 
You know, I've always been of the opinion that freedom of speech = freedom to make a complete public jackass of oneself, as this guy has.

Jail is for criminals, not jackasses.
 
Maybe they should put him into a gas chamber and then an oven?
 
I also wholly support the right of people to speak/publish this drek. Still, I can't seem to find much sympathy. Most Holocaust deniers, including Irving, are no more than neo-fascist propaganda mouthpieces. Follow the money...

Edit - People like Irving bring to light an interesting dilemma. What is the best way to fight the spread of his ideas, counter-arguing or simply refusing to acknowledge his position? If you argue against him, you grantr his position a certain legitimacy, no matter how thoroughly you trash his claims. Simply being seen in a debate with a prominent real historian gives him credibility, especially when most people will see a quick sound bite rather than see the whole debate. OTOH, simply ignoring him means that many people will believe him because his ideas aren't being countered. It also allows him to spread the idea that real historians are scared to debate him because "they know he's right".
 
fascist = socialist

The NSDAP were the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I wish people would start using the term instead so we can place the blame on the Left where it belongs.

For some reason the whining liberals call Bush a nazi but the truth is they are much closer to skinheads than W is. Heck you got scum like Noam Chumpsky, grand supreme intellect of the left, denying the Holocaust.
 
Ian, by and large I think we're better off to openly challenge these clowns. If left alone, they pick up some adherents by default.

A guy I know is a "professional denier". He has three-ring notebooks full of Xeroxed clippings from "ultra" sources that he believes are "proof". I suggested to him that his proof was calling my eye-witness father a liar--which I saw as an unsafe thing. :) I also pointed out that I'd trust the old master sergeants with whom I served in the Army who'd been in on liberation of some of the concentration camps.

Were they still alive, they'd probably say, "Who am I to believe? You, or my own lying eyes?"

Art
 
This man is a fool, and anyone who listens to him is also a fool. With that said, this law is completely wrong-headed. For one thing, I am not willing to see an erosion to the concept of free expression simply because of fools and another, this sort of constraint on unpopular speech is exactly the sort of thing that the children of so many nations died to prevent in the first place.

You dont defeat your enemies by becoming them.
 
Ditto the above comments.
Silencing him only gives feeble-minded fools a sense of legitimacy to their conspiracy theories. Evil tends to grow in dark places, let him spout his insanity in the wide open world of free speach.
 
Irving once sued Lipstadt for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier. The British court handling the case in 2000 declared that Irving could be labeled as such, and that he was anti-Semitic, racist and misrepresented historical information.

While I don't necessarily agree with limiting this anti-Semitic racist's speech, in some parts of Europe their historical experience makes them have good reason to consider Holocaust denial the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
 
I also wholly support the right of people to speak/publish this drek. Still, I can't seem to find much sympathy.

So, which is it? ;)

As to the question posed, shine the light on these cockroaches, and they'll scuttle away. The corollary to shermacman's comment is: Evil hates the light of truth.
 
Jail time or other punishments

Could be bennificial in the more extreem cases of imoral writings and teachings.
I am not posting to start any debates. If someone wants to dispute known facts as well as they "KNOW" them the thread may get closed.
The argument "shouting fire in a crouded theatre" are peanuts compared to the rumor this man has conveyed to willing audiences thirsty for half baked versions and re-writen history.
I agree the law seems over the top for reality. The real history should be in schools and at home.
I can think of many people deserving some punitive action for misleading the public with fictional data.
S. Brady
M. Bellesiles'
M. Moore
Muslim clerics
Certain mormon leaders
Some J witnesses
Other religious leaders leading congregations to mass suicides? The comet is here for US!
We have many other people on our side of many arguments who win with the facts. Argument and debate between some talking heads with the likes of John Lott turns into the best entertainment of the year or even the decade!
 
boofus wrote:
Heck you got scum like Noam Chumpsky, grand supreme intellect of the left, denying the Holocaust.

Wrong. Noam Chomsky has never denied the Holocaust. In his book Peace in the Middle East?, he describes the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history."

Chomsky has defended the right of free expression. Such a freedom, if it is to be at all meaningful, must include speech with with one disagrees. Speech with which one agrees doesn't need protection, right?

For example, txgho1911 wants to punish people with sharply different political and religious views. "People deserving some punitive action for misleading the public with fictional data" and "extreem cases of imoral writings and teachings." [sic]

A clear expression of the totalitarian mindset.

See His Right to Say It by Noam Chomsky, The Nation, February 28, 1981.

Boofus, your claim is plain and simple a libel.
 
Freedom of speech is nice. Heck otherwise this board would be a giant 9mm vs .45 thread.

David Irving is a couple of quarts low thats for sure otherwise he would have kept his ravings exclusively inside free countries.

Whatever happened to Salman Rushdie? Did Iran ever drop their death sentence for his writing the Satanic Verses?
 
If you start criminalizing speech, even speech that the vast majority of people believe to be false, you must give the governement the power to decide what is "True" and what is "False".

I don't want a Ministry of Truth.

Let the people decide who the wackos are, and leave it at that.
 
With that said, this law is completely wrong-headed. For one thing, I am not willing to see an erosion to the concept of free expression simply because of fools and another, this sort of constraint on unpopular speech is exactly the sort of thing that the children of so many nations died to prevent in the first place.
I disagree. They died to end the threat of Nazi tyranny, which included the holocaust. These former Nazi countries should never stop acknowledging their participation in the extermination of millions. And why should a British citizen be entitled to 1st Amendment protections anyway? You want constitutional rights, become an American.
 
R.H. Lee said:
And why should a British citizen be entitled to 1st Amendment protections anyway? You want constitutional rights, become an American.

Everybody has the rights defined in the Bill of Rights. Only the United States acknowledges it. Other countries repress the rights of their people.
 
javafiend said:
boofus wrote:


Wrong. Noam Chomsky has never denied the Holocaust. In his book Peace in the Middle East?, he describes the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history."

Chomsky has defended the right of free expression. Such a freedom, if it is to be at all meaningful, must include speech with with one disagrees. Speech with which one agrees doesn't need protection, right?

For example, txgho1911 wants to punish people with sharply different political and religious views. "People deserving some punitive action for misleading the public with fictional data" and "extreem cases of imoral writings and teachings." [sic]

A clear expression of the totalitarian mindset.

See His Right to Say It by Noam Chomsky, The Nation, February 28, 1981.

Boofus, your claim is plain and simple a libel.

It may be false, but it is not "plain and simple." Chomsky does indeed defend his association with Neo-Nazis as simply his acting in defense of freedom of speech. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt; however, his association with Holocaust deniers is not fictional, just mischaracterized, from what I can tell.

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840
http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/07/political-economy-of-holocaust-denial.html

Chomsky did, however, deny another Holocaust, perpetrated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, in part because admitting its existence did not fit his desired worldview. His denial, however, is so obfuscated as to be essentially incomprehensible to the casual reader, and painful to the analytical one. It is more subtle, a brushing aside of this Communist holocaust.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Chomsky is, in fact, a man who uses words very cleverly. He's not a ham-fisted neo-Nazi. But he's no more in touch with reality, however interesting some of his observations might be.
 
Oh, and by the way, I am Austrian by descent and spent yesterday with the wife of an Austrian Consitutional Court justice (he is my cousin; she is also a JD). I wish I'd seen this before the conversation. We had some interesting converstations about freedom.

Let's just say, the Euro version of "freedom of speech" is pretty damned Orwellian.
 
R.H. Lee said:
And why should a British citizen be entitled to 1st Amendment protections anyway? You want constitutional rights, become an American.

We do, but it's irrelevant anyway, he has been arrested in Austria for acts carried out in Austria (some time ago) that are criminal under Austrian law.

And to others - call the 'Left' Nazis if it helps you to dismiss everyone you don't like hearing from. It's about as clever as the 'Bush is a Nazi' comments.

Although it is still somewhat limiting, the idea of a 'authoritarian/libertarian' axis added to the 'left/right' spectrum explains totalitarian govts far better than 'left/right' alone.
 
Everybody has the rights defined in the Bill of Rights. Only the United States acknowledges it. Other countries repress the rights of their people.
That's a lofty ideal, but without codification those 'rights' exist only as an intellectual exercise, so it's disingenous to assert 'rights' that don't exist outside ones own country of citizenship. What's more, the FF knew that words actually mean things, which is why exercise of the 1st Amendment is a serious matter. It is only in recent times that any inane utterance can claim 1st Amendment protections.
 
R.H. Lee said:
That's a lofty ideal, but without codification those 'rights' exist only as an intellectual exercise, so it's disingenous to assert 'rights' that don't exist outside ones own country of citizenship. What's more, the FF knew that words actually mean things, which is why exercise of the 1st Amendment is a serious matter. It is only in recent times that any inane utterance can claim 1st Amendment protections.

It is a lofty ideal, and one that I happen to believe in. Everyone has these rights ("all men are created equal", not "all Americans are created equal") but other countries fail to recognize it. That is why tyrants are evil -they are repressing people's rights. If kings truly were a higher class of being, with more rights than everyone else, they would be just.

People should be allowed to deny the Holocaust all they want, and other people should be allowed to deny them. Open debate is the best way to find truth.
 
While I don't necessarily agree with limiting this anti-Semitic racist's speech, in some parts of Europe their historical experience makes them have good reason to consider Holocaust denial the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

+1 Zonamo.

I found a site that catalogues refutations of Irving and the "Institute for Historical Review's" claims about the holocaust, the Nizkor project at www.nizkor.org. Looks to me like Irving has been begging for this kind of problem for a long time now.
 
I'm not sure that this is a "freedom of speech" question at all. The point at issue is the accuracy or truth of the speech in question. "Free speech" is fine as long as it's over points that don't affect issues of fact, but when the truth about something is known, to deny that truth may (depending on the subject matter) open up a whole new can of worms.

For example, I can stand up and proclaim that "the moon is made of green cheese". This is factually wrong, and can be proven and/or demonstrated to be wrong. However, I'm not harming anything or anybody by maintaining my point of view, so I'm unlikely to suffer consequences. However, if I proclaim that a given race is genetically inferior to the White race, this is also demonstrably wrong through scientific methods, but can lead to racial violence and/or other negative responses against the race in question. Because my statements are factually inaccurate, I can't defend them by claiming the right of free speech - I'm actually, factually wrong, and am therefore liable for any results of my erroneous claims.

I would argue that Irving, by making factually inaccurate claims, is either defending criminal conduct, or placing the groups affected by the Nazis (i.e. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirable" minorities) at risk of further violence. Since he is factually in error, he can't claim the right of "free speech" to broadcast his "opinions" - they're not "opinions" at all, they are lies! Therefore, I don't think that "free speech" is an acceptable defence.

What say you?
 
Preacherman...

Playing the Devil's Advocate, how do we know that he is factually in error until he's allowed to present his argument, rebuttal, counter-rebutall, so forth, in a public forum?
Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top