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

20:59 / 23.01.06

Is it far better to have suspect ideas openly debated? That doesn't seem to be the case with regards to creationism, which feeds off the publicity and implied legitimacy.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:59 / 23.01.06

This is true, and there is an extent to which one can use that argument to say that no restrictions can be placed on what is said. However, part of this is about what is political discourse, what is incitement to racial hatred and where apologiai to genocide fit in there. For example, Buk says:

I don't believe that any expression of an idea can be threatening in itself.

That seems to me self-contradictory. First, because we have already established conditions in which the expression of an idea can be threatenng - if, for example, it is expressed at 3am outside your house. If we assume that that is independent of the idea's expression selbst, how about if the idea is "you and your people drink human blood, rape our children and must not be allowed to live amongst real people". That, it strikes me, is pretty threatening when expressed in almost any context. What gets fuzzier is if there is nobody immediately around when it is spoken who will be threatened by it. Does the likelihood that it will increase the risk of people being on the receiving end of threats or harrassment later factor in? That's an interesting question.

However, to claim that public order legislation takes care of all unacceptable speech acts - such as standing outside somebody's house at 3am - is simply to split the difference another way. Instead of "I believe in total freedom of speech - except when it incites racial hatred", you say "I believe in total freedom of speech - except when it contravenes public order legislation". They are both "common sense" positions - i.e. not ideologically or legally "pure". I imagine we both agree that speak should be free if it does not damage the freedom of others. However, I believe that incitement to racial hatred does damage the freedom of others, and that Holocaust denial is a form of incitement to racial hatred.

So, yeah. Tricky. I note, Lurid, that your Zionists are looking at current affairs rather than history. Does that make a difference? Cultural and geopolitical sensibilities are clearly a complication - in much of the Middle East, for example, the idea that the Holocaust did not happen is clearly more respectable than it is here. However, I do not have a huge problem with Irving and his ilk heading over there to chance their luck.

07:32 / 24.01.06

"I believe in total freedom of speech - except when it contravenes public order legislation".

I see what you mean but I do think you can seperate the two. In your 3am rabbi example the problem isn't the content of what is being said it is the threatening context. Laws should exist that handle that context but not the content.

Regardless of what someone is saying if a Rabbi feels threatened by someone shouting outside there house at 3am then they can expect to be protected by law. However to ban the content of that speech in all contexts is, erm, bad.

The right to freedom of speech should be regardless of content. There should be no limits on what kind of books can be published, no limits on academic freedom.

09:02 / 24.01.06

I note, Lurid, that your Zionists are looking at current affairs rather than history. Does that make a difference?

Yes, I think it does. The overwhelming body of expert opinion asserts that Holocaust Denial is fraudulent. This is sufficient, I think, to deny a voice to that position in certain media. One might try to go further and say that this justifies total censorship. The difference with supposed anti-semitic media bias is presumably that there is no such agreement on the facts, nor can one imagine there being such in a current political dispute. The other difference is that the weight of opinion (I think this is right) rejects Holocaust Denial as beyond the realm of decent discourse.

The point is that you can't simply rely on the potential harm that a piece of speech might do in some abstract causal chain. But if that isn't enough, then other possible deciding factors don't look all that attractive either. Does anyone want legislation to dictate that historical fact is set, while political commentary isn't? Or that factual accuracy, as decided by the courts, is standard to which speech should abide?

Of course, my last points are a bit unfair since I certainly can't imagine free speech legislation that is without problems.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:33 / 24.01.06

I think that is a problkem, Lurid - no setup is perfect, and by extension any level of legislation is going to be open to challenge, unless you adopt a utopian viewpoint, the practical issues of which then become increasingly clear. I confess that my reaction to the news that David Irving has been imprisoned contains a healthy mixture of schadenfreude.

Speaking of utopian viewpoints:

The right to freedom of speech should be regardless of content. There should be no limits on what kind of books can be published, no limits on academic freedom.

I'm pretty sure that project does not survive contact with the real world. Let's go back to our rabbi. You say that it would be clear if he were being threatened, and this that what was a free speech issue would become an issue of threatening behaviour, but without any sense of what it is not acceptable to say, how would that work? If one has freedom to speak, regardless of content, then what does context add? Nothing, because the speech is vouchsafed absolute freedom.

Also, of course, this model gives power to the loudest voices. Let's say that a story appeared in The Sun tomorrow outing you as a sex offender. Now, as it happens you are not a sex offender, and you write to them to complain about this. They tell you that their freedom of speech allows them to say whatever they like without fear of proscution, and as such it is in no sense in their interests to publish any sort of recantation. At this point, normally, you would be allowed to take them to court, but it seems to me again that if you claim total freedom of speech but also maintain libel laws, then you are not actually offering freedom of speech - people are not allowed, for example, to say things that are defamatory.

09:05 / 25.01.06

Yeah I wouldn't want anyone to be able to libel me and wilfully publish lies about individuals. So too utopian there, yeah.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:59 / 20.02.06

The trial begins.

British media ia generally reporting that Irving is claiming a Damascene conversion and acknowledges that the Holocaust did happen, lots of jews were gassed and so on. However, as reported in The Independent on Sunday yesterday this is based on documents he claims to have discovered in 1992, so after the warrant was issued by Austria but before that libel trial against Lipstadt and Penguin Books which he lost.

Deborah Lipstadt's blog has a German newspaper report that Irving has switched lawyers to 'a notorious Nazi lawyer' who is planning to argue not that Irving was wrong, but the Austrian law is too vague to define what it means by Holocaust denial. This conflicts with the BBC report.

16:25 / 20.02.06

The trial ends.

According to the Beeb he got 3 years, which surprised me (but not in a bad way.)

21:14 / 20.02.06

i read this in the paper this morning and all i could think about was that kid on the simpsons who goes "haa haaaa"

haa haaaa

oh, and apparently, oh yeah he was mistaken. that's right, now he comes to think about it there was a holocaust and six million jews were exterminated by the nazis. oh yeah, oh you you mean that holocaust... at least he has soo defeated himself he will never be heard of again. yay.

Jawsus-son Starship

21:43 / 20.02.06

i don't think i need to say that the holocaust happened, but surely sending someone away for three years saying it didn't is a bit harsh? I get the angle about inciting violence, ant-semetic violence at that, but isn't sending someone away for three years abit harsh?

Personally, he should just have been rediculed for being a cunt?

Phex: Dorset Doom

22:16 / 20.02.06

Read the thread dude. Also, it's spelt 'ridiculed'.

But, to summarise: They're not sending him away because he disagreed with the accepted version of history, you can't be sent to prison for denying the existence of the Great Depression or American civil war. Holocaust denial by academics, no matter how shaky their credentials are, enables people to hold views that lead directly onto discrimination and violence against Jewish people, which we don't want in a civilized society.
Also, no, sending somebody to prison for inciting even more hatred against what is probably the most universally -and wrongly- hated group in the world is not 'a bit harsh'.

Jawsus-son Starship

07:29 / 21.02.06

Also, no, sending somebody to prison for inciting even more hatred against what is probably the most universally -and wrongly- hated group in the world is not 'a bit harsh'.

now if he was saying that all jews should be murdered, then yes, that is inciting hatred. but to say the holocaust never exsisted is just the ramblings of a maniac, no?

would i go to prison for saying that the english didn't murder people in concentration camps during the boer war? or that 200m black slaves didn't die in their own private holocaust?

07:56 / 21.02.06

now if he was saying that all jews should be murdered, then yes, that is inciting hatred. but to say the holocaust never exsisted is just the ramblings of a maniac, no?

No, because he wasn't "rambling". He was presenting falsehood as facts using inaccurate historical data. The end result of which is some people listening to him could end up believing that the Jewish people might be complicit in creating a fake "myth" about their persecution. This could (and has) lead to prejudicial behaviour and anti-semitism.

would i go to prison for saying that the english didn't murder people in concentration camps during the boer war? or that 200m black slaves didn't die in their own private holocaust?

No, although the historical evidence would be very much against you. However Holocaust Denial is a crime in Austria. Irving broke the law. So he goes to prison.

I for one am laughing.

Not in the Face

08:11 / 21.02.06

The quote from his wife at the end of the article seems to suggest he went to Austria for precisely the purpose of getting arrested.

Sadly my suspicion is that he did this to garner further publicity - after all he appears to live on donations and support and, again a ccording to the Guardian, distributes much of his writing for free. Presumably he can never earn too much or Penguin will come after him for the money he owes. So why not live for 3 years at the expense of Austria, probably one of the nicer prison systems in the world I imagine and protray yourself as some kind of bemused, english gentleman scholar who's been hard done by?

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:28 / 21.02.06

Well, there is that. In part, Irving's crime is unbelievable stupidity - entering Austria despite being banned. Also worth noting is that he had entered Austria to address a far-right student group. This is not random persecution.

Interesting points raised on the slave trade, for example. I'd say there are a number of differences - there are no political movements of any size currently campaigning for the return of slavery, for example, who would seize on claims that the slave trade was victimless. However, these differences may not justify a ban on Holocaust denial...

Jawsus-son Starship

10:39 / 21.02.06

This feels like the wrong thing to be arguing about, and in no way do I agree with anything this moronic man, evil actually is a better word, believes. It just feels kind of, wrong? like he shouldn't go to prison for saying this. distorting historical fact seems to be something that the majority of governments do on a daily basis. and the people this guy preaches to hardly seem like the kind of people who are borderline about thier beliefs about the holocaust or the jewish in general.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:45 / 21.02.06

Sorry, hang on - I think I'm lost. Do you mean that as long as he only promulgates his beliefs to neo-Nazis, there is no harm in them?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

02:13 / 22.02.06

Well, I think his partial retraction, whether (implausibly) genuine or (more likely, imho) bollocks, will have done his standing with the far right no good at all. Which is nice too.

02:20 / 22.02.06

I agree with you DesperateMath in that I think 3 years is far too strong a penalty for something like this. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. BUT...Austria has had problems with Nazis that as an American, I cannot understand. He must have known what would happen if he went there. He did it anyways and I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

06:10 / 22.02.06

IMHO, the question boils down to something like this: What can you do with people who believe stuff that does not tally with actual historical fact? Irving is no big cheese himself, but he's made a healthy living for himself since the Penguin trial from far-right groups, the demolishing of his academic credibility hasn't done him any harm (I believe he declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying any damages to Penguin but would seem to have done the usual dodge of shifting his assets to his family). He clearly has no interest in 'the truth' of the Holocaust and is part of a network of people that act as inciters and enablers for Nazis. Leaving them alone seems to just leave them to continue to wind themselves up. So what can you do with Irvings and Ahmadinejads of the world?

09:03 / 22.02.06

I think 3 years is far too strong a penalty for something like this.

I think it's quite reasonable myself. He's declared himself bankrupt to dodge legal fines before, so a custodial sentance seems to be the best way to apply his punishment.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:46 / 22.02.06

Slim also raises an interesting point- what right DO any of us have to pass judgment on how Austria deals with the aftermath of something few of our own countries have experienced? Added to which the fact that, to my knowledge, none of the commentators playing the free speech card have railed against Austria's supposedly tyrannical anti-Holocaust denial laws before, despite the fact that they've hardly been kept a secret.

See, as far as I can tell, what happened here is that somebody went to a foreign country in full awareness of its laws, broke one of those laws, has been brought to what, as far as I can tell, was a fair trial, and duly sentenced.

If we're to accept that the law exists in the first place, and that none of us has seen fit to speak out about it before now, then I find it hard to see that, of a possible ten years, three for Irving is harsh at all. If someone like Irving, who has not only denied the Holocaust but has attempted to bring his ideas into academia and to have them treated as PROPER HISTORY- like what people get taught and stuff- deserves less than three OF A POSSIBLE TEN, then who the fuck deserves the full stretch?

13:26 / 22.02.06

Some creationists think creationism should be included in science books. Should we arrest them as well?

I am not comfortable with arresting someone for what they believe. I'm also not convinced you can draw a direct path from one man denying the Holocaust to another man committing a hate crime against a Jew. As long as Irving isn't advocating the abuse of minorities, or presenting a clear threat to the saftey of others, I cannot agree with imprisonment.

But like I said earlier, Irving ain't Austrian. It's like me vandalizing something in Singapore and bitching about getting caned. In my opinion, Austrians should eliminate the law but if it has the support of the majority of the population, well...it's hard to be sympathetic to the plight of Holocaust-deniers.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:30 / 22.02.06

I am not comfortable with arresting someone for what they believe.

Quick correction - they aren't. They are arresting somebody for what they have published. Irving has gone on record during the trial, presumably in an attempt to knock down his sentence, as saying that he was wrong in his book. Of course, he will retract that as soon as it can no longer do him any good to say it, and claim a victory in bamboozling a decadent court, but nonetheless.

19:41 / 22.02.06

Some creationists think creationism should be included in science books. Should we arrest them as well?

(mutters) In an ideal world...

Sorry, did I say that out loud?

The difference between Creationism and the Holocaust is massive. Creationism is (IMO) wrong-headed anti-intellectual bullshit, but it has yet to attempt to wipe out an ethnic group in an act of industrialised genocide (as far as I know).

Austria, as you point out, still has people who remember the crimes of the Nazis. People who were witnesses to the atrocities that their government of the time committed. This is not about freedom of speech, this is about an attempt by the Austrians to ensure that the Holocaust is remembered in all of it's horror in order to try and prevent it happening again.

23:14 / 22.02.06

I am not comfortable with arresting someone for what they believe. I'm also not convinced you can draw a direct path from one man denying the Holocaust to another man committing a hate crime against a Jew. As long as Irving isn't advocating the abuse of minorities, or presenting a clear threat to the saftey of others, I cannot agree with imprisonment.

Perhaps the feeling is intensified having watched Resnais' Night and Fog again recently but what Irving professes to believe doesn't seem just ridiculous or laughable. It's profane, terrible, insulting, monstrous and dangerous. He's not merely a silly academic with some wrongheaded ideas but an active participant to highly anti-semetic behaviour. It's an attempt to deny genocide while at the same time pointing to it's victims as perpetrators of some malign subterfuge. One doesn't have to prove to me that his writings may influence direct violence or anti-semitism it's obvious that they do so and probably will continue to.

Whether his incarceration will do anything to change this I'm less certain of and in fact it probably won't. Yet, I can't help feel overwhelmingly glad to hear he was sentenced.

And attempting to draw comparison with Holocaust denial and the advocation of Creationism is highly ridiculous (begins to splutter) I can't believe someone would even try.

Phex: Dorset Doom

00:58 / 23.02.06

Absolutely.

As to whether his incarceration will change anything, I highly doubt it. His supporters are going to sputter about freedom of speech in public, making everybody who actually believes in the concept nauseous, and in private (and on the various far-right message boards and magazines) they'll be accusing the Austrian government of being 'zionist puppets' etc. On the plus side, it has taken a prominent holocaust-denier off the board, which can only be a good thing.

13:00 / 23.02.06

And attempting to draw comparison with Holocaust denial and the advocation of Creationism is highly ridiculous (begins to splutter) I can't believe someone would even try.

It was more of a response to Weevil's anger of someone trying to put somethimg that is blatantly false into history books.

And despite arguments to the contrary, I do not think that denying the Holocaust is the same as advocating racial violence. Of course, because I'm not a neo-nazi I've never read Irving's work (and don't plan on it). Perhaps he has made some truly insidious remarks about the Jews, I don't know. Again, I'm merely noting that though I may disagree with Austria's laws, I can somewhat understand people feel the need for them to exist.

13:18 / 23.02.06

It was more of a response to Weevil's anger of someone trying to put somethimg that is blatantly false into history books.

Which was intended to achieve what?

What you seem not to understand Slim is that Irving's work essential says that the Jewish people forged a myth of the Holocaust in order to promote their own agenda. He suggested that there were now more people claiming to be camp survivors than were actually ever imprisoned.

As has been mentioned upthread. This has the effect of promoting an anti-semitic belief that all Jews are involved in a nefarious conspiracy designed to trick and decieve. This has been seen to promote violence against the Jewish people.

20:05 / 24.02.06

There's a link to David Irving's personal website here.
I haven't trawled through it yet and I'm not sure if I ever will but all of his books are available freely to download if anyone wants to take a more scrutinous view of his work.

Jawsus-son Starship

21:22 / 28.02.06

Craziest idea Irving's said so far - If there really was a holocaust, than the Germans would have got them all, because they're so damn efficient.

This guys working on a whole nother level of crazy.

14:02 / 01.03.06

Craziest idea Irving's said so far - If there really was a holocaust, than the Germans would have got them all, because they're so damn efficient.

Agreed. I heard him saying this on Radio 2 from his cell. A pity that the interviewer never pointed out the obvious reason why "German efficiency" might not have been able to kill every Jew.

They were also busy fighting a world war, Irving you cretin, A WORLD WAR!

Our Lady Has Left the Building

21:01 / 01.03.06

It's gratifying for him to show his 'conversion' to accepting the Holocaust happened was just a feeble ruse to try and escape punishment. He's like one of those villains that can't help but admit their crimes rather than escaping by keeping their mouths shut, hopefully he'll spend the time in jail cultivating a fine moustache and an evil laugh.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:16 / 01.03.06

I also think it's quite funny that his "retraction" apparently (according to him) was due to things he had discovered in 1992. Way to prove yourself a reliable historian, Dave! Discover stuff fifty years after everyone else!!!

For someone who's made a career out of building a framework of "evidence" (well, lies, really, but y'know, that's probably just semantics or something) I like the fact that he's now in a position where he's forced to constantly contradict himself. Hearing him on Radio 4, in response to a question about his daughter never leaving the house without a copy of Anne Frank's diary to protect herself from criticism about her father, of whom she is apparently rightly ashamed, trying and failing miserably to spin it by saying the existence of the diary somehow proved him right(!) was just embarrassing. I felt embarrassed for him. And I can't stand the fucker.

06:01 / 08.03.06

This man that many of you are so qick to deal judgement and indignation to is your brother whether you like it or not. He is your brother in that he is living on the commons here with rest of us yobs and he is being punished for having a certain point of view - that my friends is called a thought crime - that this man is being punished not for armed robbery, theft, rape,arson or murder but for having an unpopular opinion is insanity.

That is the worst Orwellian nightmare come true. Have we all gotten so used to the fucking cameras that we cannot see these walls being built up all around us.

What if free thinking discussion boards like Barbelith were outlawed and everyone who ever posted here was branded a criminal?

There is no safety - there is no safety - there is no safety - there never was any such thing. Safety is an illusion. Any one of us could step out on to the road tomorrow and get killed by a car. There is no amount of draconian legislation that can ever change that fact yet we are all just giving away our freedom. They have us so brainwashed that we are sitting here actually debating on whether or not another human being does or doesn't have the right to think,say, or write certain things.

They got smart after WW2. Instead of burning books in the streets they simply pass laws against certain ideas.

Page: 1(2)3 4