Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

David Irving- guilty as charged?

Page: (1)2 3 4

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:24 / 09.11.01

Anyone hear that thing on Radio 4 last night about the David Irving libel trial? I obviously knew he was a twat to start with, but I'd never really heard the guy speak before, and I'd always imagined he'd only got as far as he had by being either a) charming or b) able to argue an unreasonable point (eg Holocaust denial) in a reasonable manner...
but no!
Half the programme was interviews with him about the trial, and he was so obviously a Nazi cunt I'm amazed the judge even bothered turning up! (He recites a song he sings to his baby daughter about how she shouldn't marry "an ape or Rastafarian", the last word cunningly rhyming with "Aryan", then says "and they say that makes me a racist", or words to that effect.)
Fuck, when Deborah Lipstadt received the original writ she must have felt like she'd been handed a cheque!
Apart from anything else, to claim that you're not anti-Semitic, it's just an international Jewish conspiracy that's trying to make you look like one isn't gonna help your case any.
Jesus, what a prick.

08:40 / 09.11.01

I couldn't agree more...

08:40 / 09.11.01

If I was being sued, I would have mounted the defence that 'David Irving' doesn't exist and is, in fact, a lie made up by an evil conspiracy - a conspiracy so devious they've actually convinced him that he really does exist...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:40 / 09.11.01

oooohhh... snakey.
Must think more on this matter. Me go sleepy now.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

08:31 / 22.01.06

Giving this a boot with reference to this interview ahead of David Irving's trial for Holocaust Denial in Austria next month (there's this website for Lipstadt versus Irving).

I find myself torn over whether it's really right to make holocaust denial a crime but, on the other hand, David Irving doesn't seem to have suffered any discomfort from having his academic credibility completely destroyed and the same anti-Semitic/ the Holocaust never happened crap is still being peddled, more recently by the president of Iran. What are you going to do?

10:54 / 22.01.06

As the case is held in Austria, it's particularly problematic, as Austria has a fairly poor record at trying actual Nazi war criminals, so to then try someone for merely denying the holocaust seems a bit bizarre, even if he does hold reprehensible, idiotic and hateful views. Basically I'm not sure his prosecution will do any good, but I'm not going to worry about him.

11:30 / 22.01.06

Lady and Phox: It's an awfully dangerous idea to proliferate (to exonerate the Nazi's of one of/if not the greatest crimes of our time) and it isn't merely a cases of historical revisionism, this kind of thing butresses anti-semite's beliefs worldwide. And apart from fuelling bizarre claims of some kind of Jewish conspiracy and absolving the Nazi party of crimes it committed, it makes the Nazism and anti-semitism as doctrines seem misunderstood as something other than hate filled and malignant (which they clearly were/are).

11:50 / 22.01.06

Um Shrug... I don't think anyone is trying to excuse, lessen or deny the crimes of the Nazi regieme...

Now to switch gears and move the topic on slightly, I do think it is dangerous to hold up the Nazis as the gold standard of evil as they often seem to be... it lets everyone else off altogeter too easily giving them the excuse, 'yeah but I wasn't as bad as the Nazis'.

11:57 / 22.01.06

I find myself torn over whether it's really right to make holocaust denial a crime

and

so to then try someone for merely denying the holocaust seems a bit bizarre

I was referring to these comments specifically and was saying that I'm in complete agreement with it being a triable offence for the reasons I gave.

Um Shrug... I don't think anyone is trying to excuse, lessen or deny the crimes of the Nazi regieme...

Apart from David Irving that is.

13:28 / 22.01.06

Umm, I kind of resent the implication that I am in any way suggesting that the holocaust and the Nazi regime weren't morally repugnant and wholly despicable. What I in fact said was that it seems a little bizarre to be prosecuting someone for denying the reality of the actions of the Nazis when Austria has failed to act on prosecuting actual war criminals who committed some of those actions.
But outside of this particular case is banning Holocaust denial is the best way of combating it: should Holocaust denial not be held up to ridicule and shown to be false in the same way as other demonstrably false and harmful ideas? That's even before you get into freedom of speech territory. Now I do have some questions about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial, but that in no way suggests that I am in anyway sympathetic to Holocaust deniers and/or the far right and other political groups who seek to peddle such pernicious claptrap.

13:57 / 22.01.06

Ah Phox and Lady I wasn't trying to suggest that either of you were at all so apologies if it came across that way, once again just stating why I think proliferating misinformation like Holocaust Denial should be a triable offence.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:05 / 22.01.06

Me too (to what Phox said).

Reading Deborah Lipstadt's blog he's actually being tried for 'minimising the crimes of the Nazis' rather than straight out Holocaust denial.

14:45 / 22.01.06

My understanding of it is that Holocaust deniers fall into two categories "hard" and "soft". The more extreme deniers believing that the Holocaust was in effect a complete hoax. Soft deniers like Irving lay claim to the fact that the number of deaths has been exaggerated "The figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and many Jews who actually emigrated to Russia, Britain, Palestine and the United States are included in the number"*, or that separate incidents did involve deliberate killings but were not under the jurisdiction of the main Nazi party or that Jewish deaths in camps were not the result of a grand design to exterminate the Jewish race but only as the result of war-time starvation, outbreaks of illness etc.

*source Wikipedia:Holocaust Denial

19:17 / 22.01.06

Unless it's possible to demonstrate, in court, and beyond reasonable doubt, that anyone's suffered direct physical harm as a result of David Irving's, as I understand it completely idiotic witings (not that I've read them,) the idea that he's looking at potentially 20 years in jail over the head of his ideas (specifically, not his actions,) seems to me to be pretty much indefensible. The point where you're deserving of anything like that type of custodial sentence, in fact of any sort of custodial sentence at all, actually, for your opinions re: teh jews/ gypsies/people who live in the radiator and eat all your food when you are sleeping, etc, is precisely at the point where the eighteen hole boot connects with the head of a representative of said community, or just slightly before. 'Slightly before' in this sense, being just before the thrown pint glass actually hits the wall. In a democratic society, free speech, however ugly, vile and offensive has to be a given, or there's just no point.

Or to put it another way, to sit down and write a book about the Holocaust, and how it never actually happened is absurd, yes, and awful, but it's not quite the same, by any stetch of the imagination, as being complicit in similar practices (imperialism, torture, race-hate, etc,) that are, y'know, still fairly current, as subjects.

Phex: Dorset Doom

20:53 / 22.01.06

One problem I have with prosecuting Holocaust denial (and let me be clear that I think it should still happen) is that it creates the impression, for both hard and soft deniers that they're the lone voices in the wilderness, oppressed either by narrow minded academics (soft) or the eeeevil Zionist World Government (hard). If David Irving gets imprisoned he'll become a martyr for nutjobbery, but if he continues to do what he does then he'll enable more people to hold idiot beliefs. Holding his beleifs up to the ridicule they deserve is good up to a point, but it gives the impression, again, that everybody is either narrow-minded or a Zionist puppet, and Irving and his supporters aren't going to change their minds anyway, especially when backed into a corner. It's a tough one.

04:21 / 23.01.06

he'll enable more people to hold idiot beliefs.

perhaps i understand the word 'enable' differently to you. would people be unable to hold such views without irving?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:08 / 23.01.06

I'm not so sure on the rights and wrongs of imprisonment here, but it should be borne in mind that this isn't just some unheard-of technicality that they're pining on him- Mr Irving must have known that this was a risk in Austria, and he went there to give his lecture with this knowledge.

09:23 / 23.01.06

In a democratic society, free speech, however ugly, vile and offensive has to be a given, or there's just no point.

I agree with that. You can't pick and choose free speech it is all or nothing.

Can ideas be as harmful as actions though?

Tryphena Absent

10:07 / 23.01.06

I think free speech is an utterly stupid idea. For instance I think that Nick Griffin should be in court at the moment for the precise reason that he is. To claim that free speech is an all or nothing situation completely discredits the power that human beings have over each other with words.

10:32 / 23.01.06

While I am in favour of some limits on free speech, and I completely agree that Nick Griffin should be on trial for his actions (and I hope he goes down for years), the case for doing the same to Holocaust deniers is slightly different. Irving's views are repulsive, demonstrably false and idiotic, but he's not actually promoting violence against people.
Mind you he deserves to do some hard time, so I'm really finding it hard to actually care enough about the fucker to continue arguing that he shouldn't go to jail.

10:35 / 23.01.06

I think that this is my point. Holocaust Denial in of itself is inherently anti-semitic. Promoting it is akin to promoting violence against certain groups because it is this sort of rhetoric that will be used to justify said violence.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:08 / 23.01.06

Especially considering that when Irving lectures, it's not usually to academics, but to far-right activists, afaik.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:14 / 23.01.06

I agree with that. You an't pick and choose free speeh it is all or nothing.

One of the most common and most dangerous assumptions made about free speech. No society has ever allowed entirely free speech, nor shall any society, for various reasons.

To take this situation, let's assume for a moment that a large number of people took it upon themselves to enter temple one Saturday and declare very loudly some of Mr. Irving's more flavoursome views. They do not offer violence, although they look quite a lot scarier than those attending temple. They do nothing but stand, and shout, and refuse to leave or be quiet. This is freedom of speech. Should it be allowed?

How about if they decide to do the same thing outside the home of the chief rabbi of that temple at around 3 in the morning? They will be in a public thoroughfare, and will again be doing nothing except exercising a right to speak freely, at a time and volume of their choosing.

Freedom of speech is a desirable ambition, in the same way that the abolition of jealousy is a desirable ambition, but to see it's all or nothing sounds to me like encouragement to let governments decide that it is, in fact, nothing, as all is impossible.

Tryphena Absent

12:18 / 23.01.06

Holocaust Denial in of itself is inherently anti-semitic.

Precisely. Irving basically tells people that this myth has been created by the ethnic group that the holocaust effected. The law he is up against is Austria's safeguard against people who might deny it and thus kick off this type of victimisation again. Especially important when there are possibly survivors who ideologically supported the Nazis at the time. That is why Austria cannot afford free speech and why we should not bow down to the claim that words hurt no one. Irving wilfully ignored the law of the land. He should be prosecuted for his crime.

12:20 / 23.01.06

To claim that free speech is an all or nothing situation completely discredits the power that human beings have over each other with words.

I think an exception is just about plausible for an incitement to violence...but just about. This is not to deny that words have power, quite the opposite. It is to question the wisdom of placing that power under legislative control. Surely you've seen the problems of government over legislating curbs to free speech in the UK?

13:00 / 23.01.06

One of the most common and most dangerous assumptions made about free speech. No society has ever allowed entirely free speech, nor shall any society, for various reasons.

Yes, this is quite true. The example usually given is that of shouting "Fire!" in a theatre. It is certainly possible to use speech as a way of preventing others from exercising other rights, like the practice of religion. Similarly, one can shout so as to prevent someone sleeping or generally interfere with their daily activities. It seems to me that these are somewhat different from the expression of an opinion in *any* context. That is, if I accept that I can't shout "Fire!" in a theatre, it doesn't follow that a fair law will prevent me from shouting "Fire!" in any situation.

Tryphena Absent

13:27 / 23.01.06

Surely you've seen the problems of government over legislating curbs to free speech in the UK?

Your argument tells me that you have to be careful when writing legislation, not that the piece of legislation that is being used against Irving is wrong but I assume that you think it is?

13:57 / 23.01.06

Now to switch gears and move the topic on slightly, I do think it is dangerous to hold up the Nazis as the gold standard of evil as they often seem to be... it lets everyone else off altogeter too easily giving them the excuse, 'yeah but I wasn't as bad as the Nazis'.

I think the Nazis were certainly gold standard evil. What I find upsetting is that some 12 million Russian civilians died as a result of World War Two, some 6 million Chinese and 4 million Indonesians. Civilians. I find the degree of emphasis that's placed on the Holocaust upsetting because to me it indicates an acceptance of these other totally unacceptable figures. Bombs and blackened earth, torture and random executions are just par for the course, apparently.

I wonder how many Russians Irving thinks died? How many were Hitler's responsibility, and how many Stalin's? I'm quite sure he couldn't care less.

I don't think Holocaust denial ought to be protected as free speech, and Irving is a denier and anti-Semite. I think that if Austria gives him 20 years though, that will be the height of hypocrisy.

14:40 / 23.01.06

"How about if they decide to do the same thing outside the home of the chief rabbi of that temple at around 3 in the morning?"

Yeah, but you are talking about threatening behaviour which is rightly illegal.

I don't want there to be any limits on what people can say aloud, or write down. People shouldn't be allowed to hurt other people or threaten them but anyone should be allowed to think what they want and no idea should be illegal.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:17 / 23.01.06

You just changed horses in mid-stream. We were talking about speech, but you end by talking about thinking. I don't think that there are any plans to make thinking illegal. I'm sure Irving would be free to think pretty much whatever he wanted.

However, Holocaust denial is not thinking, but speaking, and it is considered a speech act which is itself threatening. it is considered threatening primarily because it is invariably attached to claims that some enterprising Jewish conspiracy made it up, or exaggerated it, in order to get their own way - for example by getting a Jewish state. So, it becomes am attack on the validity of Israel, an insinuation that all Jews have dishonestly enjoyed the sympathy that a fictitious Holocaust won them, a veiled call to resume the easy persecution of the Jews in Europe that culminated in that very Holocaust...

Holocaust denial is threatening behaviour, basically. It may not seem threatening _to you_, but that's rather a different matter. Whether this should lead to custodial sentences is a slightly different question - if Irving's claims led to penury and ostracism rather than to a different kind of after-dinner circuit, that might be punishment enough - but you have to set the bar of threatening behaviour pretty low. Holocaust denial, the Protocols of the Elders, the blood libel - these are not just opinions. They are calls to arms.

15:29 / 23.01.06

I think the fact that lies are involved is relevant too. I think Holocaust denial is an implicit incitement to violence that becomes explicit when it uses lies as proofs. It’s the difference between suggesting that Travellers are a bunch of liars and thieves and suggesting, falsely, that a particular Traveller, or in this case the Traveller Global Conspiracy - meaning all Travellers, have been lying to us and stealing from us in a specific manner. Without proof, Holocaust denial may be merely another anti-Semitic anecdote, but Irving claims to prove that the Holocaust never took place, at least not nearly on the scale it actually did, and then without the authorisation of Adolf Hitler.

I don't think an incitement to violence ought to be free speech.

15:31 / 23.01.06

Your argument tells me that you have to be careful when writing legislation, not that the piece of legislation that is being used against Irving is wrong but I assume that you think it is?

I think so. Because its easy to support free speech for people you agree with, and everyone does. The hard part, and I think absolutely necessary part, is in supporting a principle which guides that legislation. And that principle needs to be upheld even for people you think are vile. For me, a freedom to express beliefs and opinions is fundamental. I'm willing to concede that this needs to be balanced against the unnacceptability of incitement to violence and harrassment, but those aren't the grounds in this case as far as I can see.

Having said all that, my defence of Irving's freedom doesn't mean I would support him being employed at any University, or of being allowed space and time to air his views on national television, say. But those would be different questions.

17:22 / 23.01.06

You just changed horses in mid-stream. We were talking about speech, but you end by talking about thinking.

It shouldn't be illegal to express any idea or thought. It should be illegal to threaten or harass someone.

a speech act which is itself threatening.

I don't believe that any expression of an idea can be threatening in itself. I take the point that chanting outside someone's house at 3am is threatening but that is something different covered by different laws.

There can be no justification for censoring what people are allowed to say. Let them say it and be judged by it. If they express hateful opinions let them by judged by that.

19:12 / 23.01.06

Holocaust denial is threatening behaviour, basically. It may not seem threatening _to you_, but that's rather a different matter.

Thats an incredibly tricky stance, though. For instance, there is a sizeable minority of Zionist opinion that sees mainstream political discourse in Europe as anti-semitic, essentially, and partly responsible for the deaths of Israelis at the hands of terrorists. Lending moral support to Hamas, and so forth. Most people here would dismiss this, so a filter of how it seems to us, even if we are not the "victim" of the speech in question, is definitely relevant.

20:20 / 23.01.06

Doesn't mean I would support him... being allowed space and time to express his views on national television

Well I think this exactly what he should be given, albeit in the context of a decent, long debate with his opposition. And I'm not sure if the fact that our elected representatives (in Europe, the US,) seem to conspicuously shy away from doing exactly that these days isn't part of the reason why someone like 'Irv' is, potentially anyway, afforded the quasi-martyr-ish status he seems in this case to be aspiring to. With regard to hate material, it's far better to have everything out in the open, I think, where it can be looked at properly - bad ideas, like mould, tend to grow best when they're unchallenged, and hidden away under the metaphorical bed, where no one much wants to look.*

* I am teh poet! I am also 75.

Page: (1)2 3 4