Holocaust denier Irving is jailed

[Bubsa]

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An unidentified onlooker told him: "Stay strong!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irving's lawyer said he considered the verdict "a little too stringent".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I would say it's a bit of a message trial," said Elmar Kresbach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fears that the court case would provoke right-wing demonstrations and counter-protests did not materialise, the BBC's Ben Brown at the court in Vienna said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irving arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irving was arrested in Austria in November, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was stopped by police on a motorway in southern Austria, where he was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He has been held in custody since then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'I've changed'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the one-day trial, he was questioned by the prosecutor and chief judge, and answered questions in fluent German.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL

 

 

 

Austria

 

 

 

Belgium

 

 

 

Czech Republic

 

 

 

France

 

 

 

Germany

 

 

 

Israel

 

 

 

Lithuania

 

 

 

Poland

 

 

 

Romania

 

 

 

Slovakia

 

 

 

Switzerland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, obviously, let's not debate the existance of the Holocaust or anything about it as it speaks louder than words for itself. I ask you to discuss the sentencing of this man. Now, while I appreciate it's an extremely sensitive subject and no doubt extremely distressing and insulting for the Jewish people for him to ever think of denying the Holocaust, do you not feel that, in a similar way of the Muslim cartoon riots, his freedom of speech has been punished? What I mean is, do you believe that if he genuinelly did not believe in the event until he later found files and accepted it on his own admission that his sentence is unfair? While he says he now accepts it, he still did publish a book and articles claiming many things to deny it; in a sense, the damage had been done. I guess it's your interpretation as to whether that counts as inciting or influencing others to believe the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I'm kinda split on this. I mean, had it been on a subject like WMD's we wouldn't even be discussing this and he wouldn't be going to jail. Such is the severity of the matter I don't think it can be overlooked. In the same way, is a man not allowed to express his genuine beliefs? I guess if he hurts someone with them, even just one person or an entire race of people such as the Jews, he probably shouldn't be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, intelligent opinions please.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Whoa...

 

 

 

That is crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All I have to say about that.

[rocketman089]

Go ahead, draw pictures of Muhamed with a bomb for a turban to try to piss off as many people as you please, but just don't say anything about the jews or the holocaust, you might offend someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, utterly ridiculous, those Austrians are totally being Nazis about this. HAHA....

[Guest GhostRanger]

I don't like what he said as much as I don't like his jail sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument is that holocaust denial is anti-semitism just doesn't fly with me. In order for speech to be supressed, it has to incite violence in some way. And unless his speech did that, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a lot of persuasion to convince me that his free speech should be silenced.

[dwarfie76]

I don't like what he said as much as I don't like his jail sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument is that holocaust denial is anti-semitism just doesn't fly with me. In order for speech to be supressed, it has to incite violence in some way. And unless his speech did that, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a lot of persuasion to convince me that his free speech should be silenced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Denial of the Holocaust - or more correctly disagreement as to what actions actually constituted the Holocaust - do not equal antisemitism. Bearing in mind that Irving does not refute the idea that Hitler was committing genocide against the Jews and others, more that he argues the extent to which those plans were put into action.

[____]

Now that's just stupid. 1989, bloody hell. Unless they've got solid proof he is still advocating this so called "hollocaust denial" then he should be let go.

 

 

 

And since the warrent from was '89 he can't exactly be held as 'active' if they can't prove he's been saying the hollocaust is fake, very recently.

[xxsheepxx]

what a stupid thing to do.. [irving]

[Astralinre]

Meh, the way I see it, making the denial of the Holocaust illegal gives it a certain credibility that it wouldn't have otherwise. It seems to that they view denial of the Holocaust as a serious threat, which it isn't. They act as if the only way they can deal with it is by outlawing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Deborah Lipstadt when she says, "The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

[Scruffy5389]

Actually, I'm really split on this issue. First off, I support the laws against holocaust denial (although this is the first Ive heard of them :shock: ). It is a violation of freedom of speech, I guess, but since there is no present-day issue being discussed, I think it's a pretty harmless violation. It's simply protecting the truth. And I think it is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gah... I don't know if these laws actually are effective in that manner, though. I'd say it certainly is a good way of ending pointless anti-semitic propaganda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess this guy Irving doesn't deserve to be sentenced in this manner, though. The way I see it, the law should suppress pointless bigotry. From reading this article, Irving seems to be an intellectual type who was merely conducting research and writing his opinion. The fact that he has since backed off of his opinions makes his sentence even less deserved. He should have just received a fine or something when his work was published.

[dwarfie76]

It's simply protecting the truth. And I think it is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See I don't think you can actually protect a 'truth' by making it immune from questioning. And what is the "truth" of the Holocaust? No one person's account would ever be expansive enough to accurately reflect it so we have a mishmash of accounts - verbal and written, a handful of theories and a large amount of speculation. I don't think that any good can come of protecting something that isn't able to be verified to any level of accuracy as a "truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that things like the Holocaust, and here in Australia the so-called "Stolen Generation" should be open to questioning without those doing the questioning being howled down as racists or antisemites. It's only through critical analysis of all the competing ideas, theories, accounts and recollections that we will ever be able to whittle away the myth and arrive at a cohesive "truth".

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

It's simply protecting the truth. And I think it is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See I don't think you can actually protect a 'truth' by making it immune from questioning. And what is the "truth" of the Holocaust? No one person's account would ever be expansive enough to accurately reflect it so we have a mishmash of accounts - verbal and written, a handful of theories and a large amount of speculation. I don't think that any good can come of protecting something that isn't able to be verified to any level of accuracy as a "truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that things like the Holocaust, and here in Australia the so-called "Stolen Generation" should be open to questioning without those doing the questioning being howled down as racists or antisemites. It's only through critical analysis of all the competing ideas, theories, accounts and recollections that we will ever be able to whittle away the myth and arrive at a cohesive "truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, Scruffy is referring to outright denial whereas you are only talking about questioning. The way you put it is like questioning what exactly happened to get the whole truth - denying it happened is something completely different.

[FooK-A-Ji]

If its the truth in his mind, that the holocaust never existed, one can not convince him of otherwise. Hence i believe it is highly unethical to lock someone up for this thin reason.

 

 

 

To be honest im fed up with all this holocaust business as well, it happened, and we can't do anything about it, we need to get over stuff like that .

[dwarfie76]

At the same time, Scruffy is referring to outright denial whereas you are only talking about questioning. The way you put it is like questioning what exactly happened to get the whole truth - denying it happened is something completely different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But still should be encouraged, as long as the side doing the arguing can back up their arguments. If you start to ban outright denial, then you have started on a very slippery slope to banning any contrary opinion being voiced at all.

[Nadril]

He's getting thrown in jail because of that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO, that's like me saying "THE EARTH IS FLAT THE EARTH IS FLAT!" and getting thrown into jail for it. Of course it's untrue, its round, but doesn't mean because i'm Stupid and/or have a different opinion that I should be punished.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

3 years in prison is ridiculous. Especially since he isn't really active.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that at most he should have been banned from publishing anything for a few years or something, and that's only if he actually is currently denying the holocaust.

[Bubsa]

IMO, that's like me saying "THE EARTH IS FLAT THE EARTH IS FLAT!" and getting thrown into jail for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In ye olde days of England that actually happened :P

[apinagez]

Go ahead, draw pictures of Muhamed with a bomb for a turban to try to piss off as many people as you please, but just don't say anything about the jews or the holocaust, you might offend someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed.

[logic-is-overrated]

I deny the existence of holocaust deniers<-- Woah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, the vast amount of evidence in favour of the holocaust should be allowed to stand on its own legs. Censorship sickens me.

[Scruffy5389]

 

 

It's simply protecting the truth. And I think it is necessary to protect the truth of the holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See I don't think you can actually protect a 'truth' by making it immune from questioning. And what is the "truth" of the Holocaust? No one person's account would ever be expansive enough to accurately reflect it so we have a mishmash of accounts - verbal and written, a handful of theories and a large amount of speculation. I don't think that any good can come of protecting something that isn't able to be verified to any level of accuracy as a "truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that things like the Holocaust, and here in Australia the so-called "Stolen Generation" should be open to questioning without those doing the questioning being howled down as racists or antisemites. It's only through critical analysis of all the competing ideas, theories, accounts and recollections that we will ever be able to whittle away the myth and arrive at a cohesive "truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, Scruffy is referring to outright denial whereas you are only talking about questioning. The way you put it is like questioning what exactly happened to get the whole truth - denying it happened is something completely different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and let me clarify: I don't think this guy deserved this sentence at all. If he was writing books about it, he was clearly doing academic thinking, supporting his ideas.... the kind of thinking and opinion that must always be protected from censorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I think the laws themselves have some degree of validity. They should only be applied in very narrow circumstances... Some neo-nazi group that is simply spreading bigoted anti-semitic propaganda and inciting violence needs some sort of check on it besides normal laws protecting from violence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, I'm arguing in favor of censorship :shock:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I really mean is, I approve of a law against anti-semitism. But since that's nearly impossible, I think these censorship laws are the next best thing. Applied to the right cases, I think they are perfectly valid laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This guy Irving is not a good application of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something like that.