Iving to go to Jail for three years... [Archive]

Manny

20th February 2006, 10:22 AM

On the other hand, I wonder if the people now standing up for the rights of the Danish press to publish the infamous cartoon, will also stand up for Irving's right to be a crack-pot.I will. I understand that the Holocaust in Europe was different from other things. But that means that the truth about it needs to be said louder not that lies about it need to be supressed. When nutjobs like Ahmadinejad have laws like this to contrast to the furor over the cartoons it makes them look less insane and evil than they are. I think Europe should repeal its Holocaust denial laws and should also reverse its recent trend toward outlawing "hate speech," whether its basis be religious, racial or otherwise. If they want to outlaw advocating mob violence or whatever, I guess that's OK.

drkitten

20th February 2006, 10:26 AM

I don't know how I feel about it all, save to know that Irving is a loon, wrong, and potentially dangerous

That's the key point. If you accept that Irving is potentially dangerous, while denying that the Danish papers that published the cartoons are potentially dangerous, then there's your justification.

You can make a fool or a crackpot of yourself, but not a danger.

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 11:33 AM

That's the key point. If you accept that Irving is potentially dangerous, while denying that the Danish papers that published the cartoons are potentially dangerous, then there's your justification.

You can make a fool or a crackpot of yourself, but not a danger.

He's even more dangerous now he's been turned into a martyr for free speech. Every Adolf Headvoices on the planet will shout from the rooftops about how he was jailed for telling 'the truth'...

headscratcher4

20th February 2006, 11:44 AM

He's even more dangerous now he's been turned into a martyr for free speech. Every Adolf Headvoices on the planet will shout from the rooftops about how he was jailed for telling 'the truth'...

Possibly, but my understanding of his plea to the court is that "he has been wrong" and that he now no longer believes there was no "holocaust" or at least believes that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that the Jews suffered more than others in WWII. I wonder how that will sit with his pals? I suppose they'll right it off to an old man trying to say what the court wanted him to say to avoid jail...

The one thing that is true about someone like Irving, is that the more era's like WWII and the holocaust are studied, the more evidence is found and explained that proves it as fact...not merely oral testiminies of dying old survivors, but papers and archives, etc. People like Irving can ignore the facts and write their history or even make it up, but it will be, as it has been throughout his career, challenable and ultimately subject to pretty significant refutation.

They should let him talk as it seems to me he only digs a deeper hole for himself, and while he may be welcomed in Terhan, whereever there is true free speech and academic freedom, he will...as he has...fail to make his case.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 11:50 AM

I don't have an opinion on this yet. Should the freedom of speech include the freedom to lie?

In general it seems like the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to lie. But the punishment is usually monetary, not imprisonment. For example if a corporation knowingly lies and advertises that their dangerous product is safe, the corporation will usually get sued. Top management and the board of directors usually don't get imprisoned even if the evidence is very incriminating. I never heard of another person in a democracy getting imprisoned over creating his or her own version of history. Could this create a precedent? Should it? Leaving aside the holocaust for a moment, who would decide if a new version of history is a lie or groundbreaking work?

What about very controversial theories created by people who are probably racists? For example there was a book written by some white professors who claimed that blacks always fell lower on the IQ bell curve than whites. It may well be that they had diabolical motives for promoting this theory. (For the record, I personally think that is a stupid theory grounded in racism.) Should they be the next to face imprisonment?

Perhaps Manny has the right idea to repeal laws banning holocaust denial. (I'm not in favor of banning hate speech however.) However, that is such an outrageous lie about such a horrible crime, its easy to see why the laws came into being.

I still have to think about this, I hope this topic gets more posts.

drkitten

20th February 2006, 12:06 PM

I don't have an opinion on this yet. Should the freedom of speech include the freedom to lie?

But the punishment is usually monetary, not imprisonment. For example if a corporation knowingly lies and advertises that their dangerous product is safe, the corporation will usually get sued.

How do you imprison a corporation?

Individual people can be, and often are, imprisoned for fraud.

I never heard of another person in a democracy getting imprisoned over creating his or her own version of history. Could this create a precedent? Should it? Leaving aside the holocaust for a moment, who would decide if a new version of history is a lie or groundbreaking work?

The same way the court system decides whether or not a proposed snake oil medicine is a lie or a groundbreaking medical treatment. They look at the evidence.

We've already seen the "precedent" in a rather loose sense in the rather infamous Irving libel trial against Penguin Books. The decision by the judge was rather clear that merely making an honest and legitimate mistake is not a problem -- but that what Irving did included deliberate misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and outright falsification.

From the judgement:

13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and misconstrue
documents and overlook material evidence. I have found that, in numerous
respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions
which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to
unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence. It
appears to me that an analysis of those instances may shed light on the
question whether Irving's misrepresentation of the historical evidence
was deliberate.

13.141 I have found that most of the Defendants' historiographical
criticisms of Irving set out in section V of this judgement are
justified. In the vast majority of those instances the effect of what
Irving has written has been to portray Hitler in a favourable light and
to divert blame from him onto others. I have held that this is
unjustified by the evidence. Examples include Irving's portrayal of
Hitler's conduct and attitude towards the events of Kristallnacht and
the importance attached by Irving to Hitler's attitude towards the
Jewish question as he claims is evidenced by the Schlegelberger note. I
have seen no instance where Irving has misinterpreted the evidence or
misstated the facts in a manner which is detrimental to Hitler. Irving
appears to take every opportunity to exculpate Hitler. The same is true
of the broader criticism made by the Defendants' of Irving's
unwarrantedly favourable depiction of Hitler in regard to his attitude
towards the Jews, which criticism I have found in section VI above to be
justified. Irving sought in his writings to distance Hitler from the
programme of shooting Jews in the East and from the later genocide in
the death camps in a manner which the evidence did not warrant. Irving
has argued, unjustifiably as I have found, that the evidence indicates
that Hitler was unaware of any programme for the extermination of Jews
at Auschwitz. In his account of the bombing of Dresden Irving (as I have
found in section X1 above) persistently exaggerates the number of
casualties, so enabling him to make comparisons between the number of
civilians killed in Allied bombing raids with the number of Jews killed
in the camps.

13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans
that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that
they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship
for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one
would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants'
contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that
the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.

Nyarlathotep

20th February 2006, 12:08 PM

On the other hand, I wonder if the people now standing up for the rights of the Danish press to publish the infamous cartoon, will also stand up for Irving's right to be a crack-pot.

I'll do it, see the new adition to my sig line. I take the right to free speech very seriously.

headscratcher4

20th February 2006, 12:24 PM

Is writing bad history, even knowing that it is bad history a lie?

If it is, every campaign biography of every political candidate everywhere is a lie.

If you prosecute for lying because it lying isn't covered by free speech, how do you determine what is a lie as opposed to puffing? As opposed to misunderstanding?

I don't have answers, but I believe the truth will be out, and Irving pretty-much always loses when his sources are challenged and his facts checked (at least when it comes to the holocaust as opposed to some of his assertions/writings about military tactics and history). Let him publish, let him make his speeches. Again, whereever there is free speech and academic freedom, his views seem to wither.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 12:35 PM

How do you imprison a corporation?

Individual people can be, and often are, imprisoned for fraud.

The same way the court system decides whether or not a proposed snake oil medicine is a lie or a groundbreaking medical treatment. They look at the evidence.

We've already seen the "precedent" in a rather loose sense in the rather infamous Irving libel trial against Penguin Books. The decision by the judge was rather clear that merely making an honest and legitimate mistake is not a problem -- but that what Irving did included deliberate misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and outright falsification.

From the judgement:

Thanks for you posts drkitten, both here and it the community forum. What you say makes a lot of sense.

I just want to clear up one badly phrased sentence in my original post.

When you say "how do you imprison a corporation?" You're right, you can't. However, in certain situations, you can "pierce the corporate veil" * and go after the principals attempting to hide behind the company's incorporation status so they can escape responsibilities for their crimes.

That's why I said in my earlier post:
"For example if a corporation knowingly lies and advertises that their dangerous product is safe, the corporation will usually get sued. Top management and the board of directors usually don't get imprisoned even if the evidence is very incriminating. "

But I should have made it more clear what I meant.

* Note: For anyone interested -- this is a legal phrase and more information is available in the search engine of your choice.

Cain

20th February 2006, 12:38 PM

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, then we do not believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

I read somewhere today (no link available) that a film critical of Christianity was refused a certificate (of some kind!) by the British film board because it violated an incredibly stupid blasphemy law. On _60 Minutes_ last night the newspaper that originally printed the Muhammad cartoons refused to print a caricature mocking Jesus Christ precisely because it would offend readers. Now this Irving nonsense. Finally I come on this board and I get to see all these unbelievable morons waving their Danish flags in "solidarity". Anyone can actively support something they agree with, which is precisely why agreement is a poor standard for judging one's commitment to free speech.

Shera, I think one ought to distinguish between academic and commercial settings. How you would like laws banning resurrection denial? The Holocaust is irrevokably political and emotional. One point that is constantly overlooked: Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are logically distinct. That is to say, one could maintain the event known as the Holocaust never took place and still hold no racial animus toward Jews. However, we typically dismiss Holocaust deniers as racists because the evidence for the event is so overwhelming that only someone with a vested interest would deny it. (The same, incidentially, goes for Christians and Muslims vis-a-vis evolution, which is a rather well-established historical fact.) Legislating against Holocaust denial propaganda is, therefore, similarly politically and emotionally motivated. If it was just any set of historical facts -- one without any special meaning -- then we would never think twice about prohibiting someone from expressing their views (e.g., Prot claims he is an alien visitor from K-PAX, a planet with two suns in the Libra constellation, one-thousand light years away). If I read Irving, and all the evidence presented against Irving, I would probably agree with the Judge. Does this mean Michael Newdow can move to England and get legislation out prohibiting the publication and dissemination of creationist literature? It's typically wise, I find, to err on the side of free speech.

20th February 2006, 12:38 PM

Art Vandelay

20th February 2006, 12:49 PM

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 12:50 PM

It sort of amazes me that when speech is unpopular so many here err on the side of repression, or at least don't have free speech as their default position. Scarey actuallly.

Look at it this way, the balance free speech vs. holocaust denial should be viewed in the context of upholding the rights of those defamed above the rights of others to make patently false statements.

I once heard a quote that holocaust deniers are like drug dealers, but instead of dealing in drugs they deal in mental poison.

headscratcher4

20th February 2006, 12:59 PM

If you can be put in prison for professing to believe something that can not be true -- such as a holocaust denyer -- than all those who believe, or profess to believe, in god, jesus, Ed, ie. the religious should be in jail.

For example, save for the fact that his misuse of history is offensive to many, how is Irving's misuse of facts different from those that profess to promote ID in our schools? Should they go to jail because they misquote/use/cite biology or because they leave information out of their arguments?

Ed is right, the cure for bad speech is more free speech.

But, Irving is a true believer as well as a liar, a charlaton, etc. How that makes him different from the overwhelming numbers of people who profess a faith and belief in a higher God and who conjur history to prove it escapes me.

For Irving its a religion, and we should not compound violations of free speech with religious persecution.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 01:05 PM

This is tough. Cain and Ed**, you guys are bringing up good points also.

However, one problem I see is that most people have no way of getting access to first hand evidence. So if I read two books, one claiming that a genocide took place and the second one claiming that it didn't -- how am I suppose to decide which author is telling the truth?

I suppose one way is to see who has the support of other historians. I don't think historians are peer reviewed the same way scientists are, but there is probably some way to see who is endorsed by his peers and who isn't.

But if someone is denying that evidence exists when it can be clearly proved that it does exist -- shouldn't they be held accountable for that? Assuming that the second book is written by a historian and he is saying in his writings I have the credentials and I looked at the raw evidence and I am telling you this genocide never happened. Then assume that it can be proved that he lied -- shouldn't he be held accountable in some way? It seems in that situation we are going beyond a difference of opinion and into the area of fraud.

BTW, I'm making an attempt, albeit a poor one, to talk about this in a general way and not about the Holocaust and Iving specifically. FWIW, I do believe that the Holocaust happened and that Iving knowingly lied. However, I don't think its a good idea to have legislation for specific examples only -- I think legislation should be general. So for example I don't think we should have one set of laws for the Holocaust and anther set of laws for the Armenian genocide in Turkey, or other genocides that occurred anywhere in the world. Instead I think we should have one set of laws that we can apply to all situations. Hope that makes sense.

** ETA: Everyone is bringing up good points. I just tend to write slowly off-line, so I didn't see the other posts before I hit the send button.

20th February 2006, 01:14 PM

Look at it this way, the balance free speech vs. holocaust denial should be viewed in the context of upholding the rights of those defamed above the rights of others to make patently false statements.

I once heard a quote that holocaust deniers are like drug dealers, but instead of dealing in drugs they deal in mental poison.

There is no doubt that clever words can be brought to bear to justify repression. And I have no doubt that the holocaust is "different". When people want to reduce liberties, it is truely amazing how many things are "different" and deserve special treatment.

Who is defamed by this speech? Who is hurt?

Ward Churchill defamed and "hurt" many people by his callous remarks. Should his right to speech be curtailed or is that "different"?

Thanz

20th February 2006, 01:19 PM

From the opinion quoted above:
13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans
that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that
they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship
for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one
would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants'
contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that
the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.
All of which makes him a bad historian and quite possibly a rank bastard of a human being. But if you replace "Hitler" with any other world leader from any other time period (Genghis Kahn, Stalin, Saddam Hussein) and Irving doesn't go to jail.

The truth about the Holocaust is not so fragile that it can really be threatened by the few idiots out there denying it. In fact, the laws only make sense if the truth of the Holocaust is considered unassailable. IF there really was a debate about it, this kind of law would be among the worst suppressions of free speech imaginable.

20th February 2006, 01:21 PM

This is tough. Cain and Ed, you guys are bringing up good points also.

However, one problem I see is that most people have no way of getting access to first hand evidence. So if I read two books, one claiming that a genocide took place and the second one claiming that it didn't -- how am I suppose to decide which author is telling the truth?

I suppose one way is to see who has the support of other historians. I don't think historians are peer reviewed the same way scientists are, but there is probably some way to see who is endorsed by his peers and who isn't.

But if someone is denying that evidence exists when it can be clearly proved that it does exist -- shouldn't they be held accountable for that? Assuming that the second book is written by a historian and he is saying in his writings I have the credentials and I looked at the raw evidence and I am telling you this genocide never happened. Then assume that it can be proved that he lied -- shouldn't he be held accountable in some way? It seems in that situation we are going beyond a difference of opinion and into the area of fraud.

BTW, I'm making an attempt, albeit a poor one, to talk about this in a general way and not about the Holocaust and Iving specifically. FWIW, I do believe that the Holocaust happened and that Iving knowingly lied. However, I don't think its a good idea to have legislation for specific examples only -- I think legislation should be general. So for example I don't think we should have one set of laws for the Holocaust and anther set of laws for the Armenian genocide in Turkey, or other genocides that occurred anywhere in the world. Instead I think we should have one set of laws that we can apply to all situations. Hope that makes sense.

If you are lazy then tough luck. The idea of "Officially Sanctioned(tm) Truth" scares the hell out of me.

In any event, Irving's views have reduced what might have been intellectual flab amoung some. Rather than saying "Holocaust" and getting the programmed response, one must know what one is talking about. He, and idiots like him, have made this event more current than it might have been otherwise and have gotten some to think about something that would scarcely have occupied a thought under different circumstances.

Do you really think that government should be in the "truth" business?

I find this entire discussion mystifying.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 01:21 PM

If you can be put in prison for professing to believe something that can not be true -- such as a holocaust denyer -- than all those who believe, or profess to believe, in god, jesus, Ed, ie. the religious should be in jail.
Well one thing the world religions have in common is that they say they must be taken on faith, not facts. So its easy to legislate a consistent exception that applies to all the world religions -- and most governments have decided to do so.

For Irving its a religion, and we should not compound violations of free speech with religious persecution.
I think Iving wants to be perceived as a historian who works with evidence.

headscratcher4

20th February 2006, 01:29 PM

Well one thing the world religions have in common is that they say they must be taken on faith, not facts.

They also depend on "hiotory" to make their case for their faith... especially Christians, Jews and Islam...

I think Iving wants to be perceived as a historian who works with evidence.

Yes, and that is his weakness, not his hate, lying or violation of the laws. As a historian he is pretty frequently reputiated. He has found some "facts" along the path of his career, but he will never be remembered as a historian, but as a crank and an amature and a liar -- because real historians pretty universally can go in and rip-him to shreds.

Whether religion that you take on faith or "hatered" that you stoke by selectivel use of facts and out-right lies. The state shouldn't censor. Irving is a sad, old man and for all of the years that he's been flogging this horse, there isn't any serious reinterpretation of the holocaust occuring in academic or historical circles...just Irving and a few cranks, Jail elevates him to a greater status than he deserves -- which is obscurity.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 01:31 PM

If you are lazy then tough luck.

My not automatically coming to the same conclusions as you do does not == lazy. Lets try to not get personal about this, OK?

Do you really think that government should be in the "truth" business?

The govt. is already in the truth business when it comes to products and most services. If a manufacturer sells you a product that he knows won't work as advertised and will in fact hurt you, he can be sued.

The question is should it be OK to charge historians with fraud? Or should certain areas be labeled "academic" and people be free to say anything they like in those areas? Including outright and easily provable lies motivated by racial or ethnic hate?

I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm just asking.

kalen

20th February 2006, 01:36 PM

So, the blasphemer is jailed. That's so much more civilized than a fatwa calling for his death.

Jeez Louise.

20th February 2006, 01:38 PM

My not automatically coming to the same conclusions as you do does not == lazy. Lets try to not get personal about this, OK?

Easy there, skippy. If one does not go out of their way to investigate (ie. being lazy) it is, indeed, tough luck. With the holocaust as well as with anything else. No need to personalize it.

The govt. is already in the truth business when it comes to products and most services. If a manufacturer sells you a product that he knows won't work as advertised and will in fact hurt you, he can be sued.

By whom? If it is you you are talking about, the government has no say other than providing a forum. With misleading advertising, there is an exchange of some kind and it is fraud. You can say what you like but you can't lie about a product you are selling and then sell it.

The question is should it be OK to charge historians with fraud? Or should certain areas be labeled "academic" and people be free to say anything they like in those areas? Including outright and easily provable lies motivated by racial or ethnic hate?

I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm just asking.

Speech should be unregulated unless there is a clear and presnet danger to property or life. Why would you even for a moment consider having it any other way?

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 01:39 PM

Finally I come on this board and I get to see all these unbelievable morons waving their Danish flags in "solidarity". Anyone can actively support something they agree with, which is precisely why agreement is a poor standard for judging one's commitment to free speech.

I couldn't agree more with your second statement, but I can't understand where you're coming from with your first. Most people on this thread are condemning Irving's imprisonment, though I'm confident none of us are holocaust deniers. Hardly 'actively supporting something we agree with'.

Personally, I must go against the mood of the meeting regarding those cartoons. I feel they were gratuitous and unnecessary, and the paper in question should have chosen not to publish them. I added the flag to my avatar to defend the paper's right to publish them, a right I feel it should not have exercised.

On an alternative note, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission here in the UK just rejected 54 complaints against a TV show that showed how miracles attributed to Jesus could be achieved using conjouring tricks. For my money, that programme was fine as it had something to say.

Complexity

20th February 2006, 01:39 PM

I think both the law that Iving was found guilty of violating and the judgement are ridiculous.

If he wants to say that it is night when it is day, let him. He will be regarded as a fool most sane people and as a truthspeaking hero by others.

If he never existed, you'd have believers that the holocaust was a hoax.

If no one every said that the holocaust was a hoax, someone would take that as evidence of a world-wide conspiracy to cover up the non-existence of the holocaust.

I spent one semester at Northwestern University as the teaching assistant to a professor who claimed that the holocaust was a hoax. He was teaching Introduction to Computers and I was teaching the lab, meeting with students and grading.

After the first class period, several students approached me and asked if what they had heard was true. I asked what they had heard and then told them that that was consistent with what I had heard.

He never mixed his beliefs on the holocaust with his teaching responsibilities. I can assure you that, if he had, someone would have burned him on it immediately.

I believe that Richard Wilbur finished a poem with the line

Let thought be free.

headscratcher4

20th February 2006, 01:41 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story

Not so different than Irving...let's jail Mormon leaders. Science suggest a central tenent of Mormonism (that Native Americans are decended from the lost tribe of Israel and thus are in someway "hebrews") is unsupported by DNA -- Native Americans related to Asians not semetic peoples. Needless to say, Church leaders decry the science and suggest that it is hearacy to question church teachings based on the facts of DNA.

Jail 'em. They now have the evidence in front of them. Their rejection of science denegrates the native American population and perpetuates ignorance and obsures truth. They are as bad as Irving and they should be silenced....

20th February 2006, 01:42 PM

For those of you that think speech should be restricted, let me ask: is only speech that is safe worthy of protection? What good is free speech if it adheres to the conventional wisdom and causes no offence?

Chaos

20th February 2006, 01:45 PM

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 01:48 PM

20th February 2006, 01:50 PM

So who's defamed? Historians who claim the holocaust did happen?

And defamation is a Civil matter.

20th February 2006, 01:59 PM

20th February 2006, 02:00 PM

Ed,

Who is arguing for the 'anti-free-speech' side here?

Don't know. I'm on a roll. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.:D

Cain

20th February 2006, 02:14 PM

I couldn't agree more with your second statement, but I can't understand where you're coming from with your first. Most people on this thread are condemning Irving's imprisonment, though I'm confident none of us are holocaust deniers. Hardly 'actively supporting something we agree with'.

By their nature symbols are contestable images with subjective meaning, so I do not (and cannot) know everyone's precise motive. That said, I do not think Denmark is a bastion of free speech for recognizing a paper's right to provoke a religious/ethnic minority.

AV:
So you think that they agree with the cartoons?

Now, I'm not even sure if the paper agreed with the cartoon's editorial stance: they apparently printed it to lecture the dark-skinned hordes on enlightenment principles of civil society. Had the paper printed something offensible to a larger Danish public, then that's a different matter altogether. Iran isn't a freer society than England because the former allows the publication and dissemination of materials outlawed in the latter. The real test of free speech is permitting someone to say things that are popularly detested.

Another apropos example: look at JJ's sig. It's an intellectually dishonest smear job on me. As a point of contrast, he complained to an administrator about a signature I once had, which quoted him full. His is pathetic, and therefore amusing. Mine was true -- and the truth sometimes stings.

Cleon

20th February 2006, 02:16 PM

The real test of free speech is permitting someone to say things that are popularly detested.

I just thought that bears repeating.

Luke T.

20th February 2006, 02:22 PM

Ed,

Who is arguing for the 'anti-free-speech' side here?

Zenith-nader and Chaos. Maybe Shera and kalen.

wolfgirl

20th February 2006, 02:30 PM

One point that is constantly overlooked: Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are logically distinct. That is to say, one could maintain the event known as the Holocaust never took place and still hold no racial animus toward Jews. However, we typically dismiss Holocaust deniers as racists because the evidence for the event is so overwhelming that only someone with a vested interest would deny it. (The same, incidentially, goes for Christians and Muslims vis-a-vis evolution, which is a rather well-established historical fact.) Legislating against Holocaust denial propaganda is, therefore, similarly politically and emotionally motivated.I think this is an important point. One does not have to be an anti-Semite to question the Holocaust. It has been given such emotional weight, though, that the minute anyone questions ANYTHING about the Holocaust, they are cast as anti-Semitic and immediately labeled as a racist and a nut.

It is possible to have some questions about the specifics of the Holocaust without dismissing that it actually took place. I don't think there are very many people who still deny that there was a Holocaust at all, but I know some people who have serious questions about some of the particulars. I don't pretend to know or understand the questions or the possible answers, not being much of a historian, but my point would be: Should those questions be off the table? Because it seems like they are. If you dare to question any single thing that is commonly accepted as written in stone about the Holocaust, you are immediately shut down. Doesn't it behoove us to question everything rather than just accept what we have been taught? I thought we were skeptics, and doesn't that include also being skeptical of the mainstream thinking, groupthink, whatever you want to call it that just tells you to accept what you've been told without questioning.

I find if a little disturbing and frightening that even here, in a forum where I expect to find only open minds, there are those who think that, for some reason, this one thing should be unquestionable, beyond doubt, immune to criticism. It reminds me of a fundy forum where people can't imagine how anyone could doubt that which they accept to be The Truth and will shut down anyone who questions them with cries of "unbeliever" or "infidel." Has the Holocaust been made the one thing that we are not ever ever allowed to ask questions about?

We are supposed to believe in free speech because without it there is always the danger that something important or true will not be heard because it is not allowed to be. If we just decide that some things mustn't be said, where are we going? How will we ever progress?

Putting someone in jail for speaking their opinions is disgraceful. It can never be tolerated. I am shocked and dismayed that is is happening and even more so that there are people even here who have no problem with it happening. I understand the fear and shame that went into the laws in Europe, but fear and shame are no reason for stamping out free speech. It was a reaction to a horrible thing that was done, much like the current wave of repression of civil rights is a reaction to more recent tragic events. Neither is the correct response.

Ziggurat

20th February 2006, 02:31 PM

Now, I'm not even sure if the paper agreed with the cartoon's editorial stance: they apparently printed it to lecture the dark-skinned hordes on enlightenment principles of civil society.

Not quite. They did it as a test, to see if the threat of violence, following on the heals of Van Gogh's assassination and the refusal of any illustrators to work on a picture book of Mohammed's life, was creating an environment where people did not feel safe to express certain opinions. And as their tests prove, that is indeed the case. The real message was never to the "dark-skinned hordes", as you so charmingly phrase it, but to those who ALREADY nominally support free speech that they need a little intestinal fortitude if they actually want to hang onto what they claim to value.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 02:43 PM

There is no doubt that clever words can be brought to bear to justify repression.I think that was a backhanded complement. :p

And I have no doubt that the holocaust is "different". When people want to reduce liberties, it is truely amazing how many things are "different" and deserve special treatment.Let me start off by saying that I do not think Irving should be in jail. Jailing Irving and turning him into a free speech martyr is surely counter-productive. Unfortunately for him countries such as Germany, France, and Austria have passed laws regarding holocaust denial. In this case I believe Austria has passed such laws because they still have a problem with hard-core racist political movements.

Who is defamed by this speech? Who is hurt?I don't think it is a matter of who is hurt but it's a matter of extremists dehumanising victims.

Ward Churchill defamed and "hurt" many people by his callous remarks. Should his right to speech be curtailed or is that "different"?Adolf Eichman, one of the accused architects of the Holocaust, did not deny it, so why does Mr Irving? ;)

20th February 2006, 03:21 PM

I think that was a backhanded complement. :p

Let me start off by saying that I do not think Irving should be in jail. Jailing Irving and turning him into a free speech martyr is surely counter-productive. Unfortunately for him countries such as Germany, France, and Austria have passed laws regarding holocaust denial. In this case I believe Austria has passed such laws because they still have a problem with hard-core racist political movements.

I don't think it is a matter of who is hurt but it's a matter of extremists dehumanising victims.

Adolf Eichman, one of the accused architects of the Holocaust, did not deny it, so why does Mr Irving? ;)

With respect, the dead have no standing except an emotional one and law based on emotion tends to be bad law.

CapelDodger

20th February 2006, 03:38 PM

wolfgirl is quite right that questioning the Holocaust is not synonymous with anti-semitism. That said, Irving is an anti-semite and a Hitler-groupie. His aim is to rehabilitate Hitler as a misunderstood Superman who was not a hyper-murderer. There can be no doubt about that aim.

Irving has been imprisoned in a particular country - Austria, homeland of the Holocaust. Generalisations about free speech are fine and dandy, but Austrian democratic society has a right to protect itself. Austria and Hitler-apology make for a particular case. Irving was arrested on his way to address one of the Aryan-supremacist student societies that were a major contributor to the modern, scientistic, genocidal anti-semitism expressed in Nazism. They have an unbroken history stretching back to the mid-19thCE. Austrian democracy was not made safe in 1945. There are significant indigenous threats to it. Austria is the land of Haidar, the place where Kurt Waldheim's popularity rose with every revelation about his SS career. This is not a confected threat, like the Muslim threat to Danish free speech.

Banging-up Irving is indeed a case of suppression of free speech, but far more importantly it's a message to the anti-democratic Austrian fraction that the democratic gumment are not pussies. And it's a message to the swayable majority that such talk is beyond the pale.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 03:52 PM

Zenith-nader and Chaos. Maybe Shera and kalen.

I'm in favor of free speech. But I'm not aware of any country that has free speech without limits. I've been trying to decide if intentional lies and fraud (manufacturing of false evidence) in an area associated with trying to stir up racial and ethnic strife falls within an area of speech that should be limited. After researching a handful of web sites, I think so.

Here's my case:

Per an article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5494602):
No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you.

A famous American example of a limitation on free speech is that it's illegal to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater when in fact there is no fire. Other American limitations on free speech include that it's illegal to counterfeit money (no, you can't call it art) or encourage and incite someone to murder.

I think that deliberately creating false evidence should also be excluded from free speech. Per this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial)Holocaust deniers have been found to do that.

Here's an interesting quote from the same Wiki article:
At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

and

The Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article 6 titled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity.

(emphasis added)

Apparently some European countries have decided to limit from free speech "denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity." Considering the violence in European history, including what happened fairly recently in Bosnia and Slovakia --- that may be an excellent idea for Europeans. Since their laws appear to be consistent -- e.g. they are not treating one genocide differently from another (the Holocaust vs. the Armenian genocide in Turkey for example), I think its perfectly legit. I don't think this particular infringement on free speech will lead to a slippery slope anymore than other existing limitations (such as libel) on free speech laws.

CapelDodger

20th February 2006, 04:00 PM

If you are lazy then tough luck.If enough people in a democracy are too lazy to discriminate between messages they're fed, it's tough luck on the rest of us. Most people are that lazy. It's why JREF exists - educate, because we're well aware that most people lack the requisite education. You extoll "more speech" as if assuming that everybody's grabbing all the speech they can get, whatever it says, comforting or not. The truth is that most people don't seek out truth, the "more speech" is just more for the chattering classes to chew on.

I first saw Irving on TV 30 years ago getting shredded by proper historians, and what difference did that make? It alerted me to Irving, but I was already the sort of person who was watching late-night BBC2. Irving has been out there tickling neo-Nazi tummies before and since, and his audience is not mulling over counter-arguments. Nor are those who are recruited by his apparent authority because they weren't previously innoculated by the truth.

Absolute freedom of speech, everywhere, everywhen, is an extreme and lazy position to take.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 04:15 PM

Zenith-nader and Chaos. Maybe Shera and kalen.I am not arguing against free speech, but hate speech.

With respect, the dead have no standing except an emotional one and law based on emotion tends to be bad law.Perhaps I am not communicating effectively. Guys like Irving are a danger to the living not to the dead. It's a matter of mathematics.

Holocaust denial + skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups = violence.

When you have holocaust deniers - Irving - preaching their "historical revisionism" to a captive and responsive audience - eg: skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups, (see: the neo-Nazi National Alliance) - it empowers the skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups and validates their racism.

p.s. Capel and I almost on the same page... I have much to learn. ;)

epepke

20th February 2006, 04:24 PM

Come on, folks. This is easy. David Iving is not worth a pint of my warm urine. However, he should have the right to free speech. Arresting him, let alone convicting him, is pure bogosity.

There is no "balance" between free speech and dissing the holocaust. The only reason to believe there is involves being young and stupid. Too much "mommy" politics. Somebody call the waahmbulance.

Of course the Holocaust happened. The history of that should stand up to any inquiry, and if it doesn't, it sucks. David Iving is a dickweed. Even more, he is willing to erect a 10 foot neon sign with an arrow pointing to him saying "I'm with Dickweed." So people want to tear down the sign? Mommy, mommy, mommy! Davey's being mean.

Grow up, Europe. Get a brain.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 04:28 PM

Grow up, Europe. Get a brain.
And what's your position on creating false historical evidence?

CapelDodger

20th February 2006, 04:29 PM

Guys like Irving are a danger to the living not to the dead.Precisely. The future - the domain of the living - doesn't just happen, it is caused, and people like Irving work to cause a future that I want to see prevented.

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 04:30 PM

And what's your position on creating false historical evidence?

It's the job of proper historians, not the courts, to call them on it.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 04:33 PM

It's the job of proper historians, not the courts, to call them on it.
I disagree. We are not talking about a misinterpretation but a deliberate creation of false evidence. That should definitely be outside the scope of protected speech and I can't think of any reason why it should not be a crime.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 04:35 PM

However, he should have the right to free speech.You have to realize epepke Holocaust denial is not a viewpoint worthy of running the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole, but simple propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited.

Luke T.

20th February 2006, 04:36 PM

When you have holocaust deniers - Irving - preaching their "historical revisionism" to a captive and responsive audience - eg: skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups, (see: the neo-Nazi National Alliance) - it empowers the skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups and validates their racism.

So does jailing holocaust deniers. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200) (Warning: link to Stormfront.org)

I wonder if the day will ever come when we will see Jews swinging from the end of a rope for publishing propoganda, as did happen to Julius Streicher, or see them imprisoned for denying the mass slaughter of Palestinians by the IDF?

Jesus. 1637 people currently online on that site. "Most users ever online was 4,865".

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 04:44 PM

I disagree. We are not talking about a misinterpretation but a deliberate creation of false evidence. That should definitely be outside the scope of protected speech and I can't think of any reason why it should not be a crime.

He wasn't jailed for creating false evidence, he was jailed for denying the holocaust happened. Whatever his motives or methods, his crime was factual inaccuracy.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 04:44 PM

From Stormfront: "I wonder if the day will ever come when we will see Jews swinging from the end of a rope for publishing propoganda, as did happen to Julius Streicher"I go to Stormfront often for a good laugh...and in times when I need to be reminded of the type of people Irving preaches too.

For those who are unaware: Julius Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and sentenced to death in 1946.

[edited to add]

Here a few juicy quotes from the Stormfront "Irving thread" and exactly what I am talking about: Holocaust denial + skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups = violence.

The Zionists should enjoy this little victory while they can. It will make our hatred that much more intense and our revenge that much more terrible when the time comes. Heil Irving!

page 3 - posted by "Wodensvolk" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200&page=3)

It sounds like Irving was trying to appease the Jews by claiming he "wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers." The Jews still gave this old man three years in prison. So much for appeasement.

page 3 - posted by "WhiteRights" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200&page=3)

This just proves the jewish handlers are heartless curs(as if we had any doubt).Even after Irving conceded to there demands.They still slapped him 3 years.To a man of his age.This could right possibly be a death sentence.The government of Austria is forever shamed.When we regain are freedom...These are the same people who will expect mercy from us...I dare say there will be little of it to be found.

page 3 - posted by "Johnnyboi" (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200&page=3)

(emphasis mine)

Cain

20th February 2006, 04:49 PM

Not quite. They did it as a test, to see if the threat of violence, following on the heals of Van Gogh's assassination and the refusal of any illustrators to work on a picture book of Mohammed's life, was creating an environment where people did not feel safe to express certain opinions. And as their tests prove, that is indeed the case. The real message was never to the "dark-skinned hordes", as you so charmingly phrase it, but to those who ALREADY nominally support free speech that they need a little intestinal fortitude if they actually want to hang onto what they claim to value.

Not quite. Not at all, actually. The cartoons did not provoke much of a response when they were first printed (in September of last year -- not quite on the "heals" of Van Gogh's homicide) because the resident Islamic population is so marginal (_60 Minutes_ observed that Muslims hold religious services in converted factories). Also, as explained by the _60 Minutes_ segment, the paper picked up on the idea of these cartoons because a Danish man had difficulty finding an illustrator for his book on Muhammad. In their very brave anti-self-censorship stance -- shortly after rejecting an unflattering piece on Christ -- the right-wing newspaper printed these Muhammad cartoons. Now if this happened in Tehran, Cairo, or Baghdad, again, then it's a different story.

Luke T.

20th February 2006, 04:56 PM

I go to Stormfront often for a good laugh...and in times when I need to be reminded of the type of people Irving preaches too.

For those who are unaware: Julius Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and sentenced to death in 1946.

[edited to add]

Here a couple juicy quotes from the Stormfront Irving thread and exactly what I am talking about: Holocaust denial + skin heads/neo nazis/white-supremacist groups = violence.

It's interesting how some see him as a "sell-out" for recanting, while others are parsing like mad to defend him.

This is EXACTLY what the jewz are doing on the Yahoo message board. They are saying "Irving admits under oath that he lied." And you'll see this in every history book published by jewz.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200&page=5

20th February 2006, 04:59 PM

Another apropos example: look at JJ's sig. It's an intellectually dishonest smear job on me. As a point of contrast, he complained to an administrator about a signature I once had, which quoted him full. His is pathetic, and therefore amusing. Mine was true -- and the truth sometimes stings.

It is interesting to note that I quote exactly what Cain said, in context, in what certainly appeared to be the intent offered.

This is in opposition to Cain's practice of taking comments out of context and conciously misrepresenting them as something they aren't.

The only reason he has not attempted to engage authority is that he knows that he is caught in a lie in his disparaging remark, captured above.

epepke

20th February 2006, 05:04 PM

And what's your position on creating false historical evidence?

I don't like it. I think he should be stripped of all academic credentials. Furthermore, if I got an opportunity to urinate on his face, I might be tempted.

But he still should have the right to freedom of speech.

I know that you're unlikely to comprehend this, and I consider that fact pathetic.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 05:04 PM

It's interesting how some see him as a "sell-out" for recanting, while others are parsing like mad to defend him.The telling part is they - the white-supremacists at Stormfront - all know who Irving is and many of them promise "revenge" on "the jews" for his prosecution. That is why this is not a simple freedom of speech issue. What Irving preaches - propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited - validates white-supremacists racism and potentially can result in violent acts.

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 05:11 PM

The telling part is they - the white-supremacists at Stormfront - all know who Irving is and many of them promise "revenge" on "the jews" for his prosecution. That is why this is not a simple freedom of speech issue. What Irving preaches - propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited - validates white-supremacists racism and potentially can result in violent acts.

If you can prove that was his intention then by all means bust him for stirring up racial hatred. If not, he can only stand or fall on his own actions, not those of others. Otherwise, you'd have to bust that Danish paper for all the trouble it caused worldwide...

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 05:20 PM

If you can prove that was his intention then by all means bust him for stirring up racial hatred. If not, he can only stand or fall on his own actions, not those of others. Otherwise, you'd have to bust that Danish paper for all the trouble it caused worldwide...What would be the intention for knowingly peddling in propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited? In other words, why would Irving spend a chunk of his life devoted to giving speeches to white-supremacist groups? I don't think it takes a "rocket surgeon" ;) to add 2+2.

Ian Osborne

20th February 2006, 05:25 PM

What would be the intention for knowingly peddling in propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited? In other words, why would Irving spend a chunk of his life devoted to giving speeches to white-supremacist groups? I don't think it takes a "rocket surgeon" ;) to add 2+2.

That may well be true, but it's not what he was jailed for...

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 05:29 PM

He wasn't jailed for creating false evidence, he was jailed for denying the holocaust happened. Whatever his motives or methods, his crime was factual inaccuracy.

We were also discussing in this forum what the limits of free speech should be. It seems appropriate to discuss whether falsification of historical evidence should be outside the limits of free speech because if you refer to the Wiki article in one of my above posts -- this is a common tool that Holocaust deniers use.

Also I would expect the court to take into account whether Irving accidently misinterpreted some data or if he went out of his way to create false data. The Austrian state prosecutor did refer to his falsification of data in the trial per this article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article346727.ece
The state prosecutor, Michael Klackl, remained unimpressed. He called Irving a "dangerous falsifier of history" and a man who often played the role of a repentant sinner.

...

Also, in reference to Irving's book, Hitler's War:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
Irving, surmised Professor Evans, had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics.

For more information about Evans see the editorial reviews on his book about Irving's libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465021530/qid=1140483996/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-0425031-2307353?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465021530/qid=1140483996/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-0425031-2307353?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)
Evans is a Cambridge historian that was hired by Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books when they were sued for libel by Irving back in 2000.

(Ironically because its so expensive to defend oneself in a libel case in England this book is not available for sale there. Apparently Irving is not so hesitate to stamp down on speech as some of the members in this forum are. ;) )

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 05:32 PM

That may well be true, but it's not what he was jailed for...IMO one cannot use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to break Austrian laws. Slander and Libel are illegal in many countries, as is giving false information in a court or to a police officer but people don't seem to scream "freedom of speech" in those instances.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 05:42 PM

double post

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 05:43 PM

I don't like it. I think he should be stripped of all academic credentials.

I'm not sure he has any. I think he dropped out of college per the web sites I've been reading. I'll double check this when I can but I probably won't be back on my PC til tomorrow sometime.

{skip}
But he still should have the right to freedom of speech.

I know that you're unlikely to comprehend this, and I consider that fact pathetic.

Awe jeez. First Ed and now you. Why does a little discussion on a small forum have to get so personal? Continue to make this personal if you like, but then I'll probably just stop discussing this with you. If I want a nasty coversation I get better ones off the web IRL. I'm not looking for more of the same.

Anyway, assuming you are willing to not get personal -- I discussed why I think this should be outside the scope of protected free speech in post #42 .

Which parts of that post did you disagree with and why?

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:04 PM

I'll have to look for the book which covers some of this, but I'm a little surprised that Austria is doing this, and at the same time, I'm not. After the Kurt Waldheim debacle, I'm thinking that part of this has less to do with Irving, who, quite frankly, is a blithering idiot and a racist, (sorry about the redundancy), but has nearly everything to do with trying to rehabilitate Austria's image, particularly after the antisemitic riots that erupted during Waldheim's run for Austria's Executive office.

The fact is that Irving is a convenient whipping boy. He'll likely beat this on appeal, and we'll never hear word one about it, but Austria will look like it's getting tough on hate-speech. It's ultimately a pantload, and a waste.

More on the story can be found here... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial)

boooeee

20th February 2006, 06:06 PM

It is interesting to note that I quote exactly what Cain said, in context, in what certainly appeared to be the intent offered.

This is in opposition to Cain's practice of taking comments out of context and conciously misrepresenting them as something they aren't.

The only reason he has not attempted to engage authority is that he knows that he is caught in a lie in his disparaging remark, captured above.
Not to derail, but I think it is pretty obvious from the context of Cain's full remarks that he was being sarcastic. The "Some of us" he was referring to are the ones in opposition to some form of nationalized healthcare. Or do you also think he considers Chuck Norris an expert on domestic policy?

Not that I necessarily agree with his point, but I find your behavior odd, seeing as how you consistently complain about the "dishonest" debating tactics of other posters. I'd make a pot-kettle-black reference if they all hadn't been used up already.

Back on topic, Irving is a douche and he should be free to advertise that fact to the rest of us.

Cain

20th February 2006, 06:07 PM

Oh JJ, you're an endlessly amusing floppy old ****.

It is interesting to note that I quote exactly what Cain said, in context, in what certainly appeared to be the intent offered.

Well, I don't mean to boast, but I am something of an authority on the matter considering I authored the comment in question. However, I am interested in learning what you think the intent was behind the last sentence in that short paragraph. I might as well quote it since the window is already open.

This is me opposing a pro-universal healthcare statement. That I am pro-universal healthcare is apparently lost on some.

Sure, if you like to be mollycoddled. Some of us prefer to see others suffer before they finally die. It makes life a bit more real (and interesting). Chuck Norris opposes socialized medicine, and so should you.

This is in opposition to Cain's practice of taking comments out of context and conciously misrepresenting them as something they aren't.

No context is provided in your signature. I might have described this post of yours here as satire... if you had not proven yourself so dim in 10,000+ previous comments.

The only reason he has not attempted to engage authority is that he knows that he is caught in a lie in his disparaging remark, captured above.

I might call this lie -- if you had not proven yourself so dumb in 10,000+ previous posts.

I don't go running off to administrators to get people to change their signatures as a matter of principle. If only you could say the same. Instead I much prefer to mock the person directly. You're an easy target: the person who thunders sanctimonious outrage (paraphrasing- "these are malicious, detestable LIES") at the person who picks apart his silly non-arguments. Fun in a preacher-caught-with-prostitute sort of way.

RandFan

20th February 2006, 06:08 PM

On the other hand, I wonder if the people now standing up for the rights of the Danish press to publish the infamous cartoon, will also stand up for Irving's right to be a crack-pot.Absolutely. I hate what he has to say but I defend his right to say it. This is an absolutely ludicrous law that has no place in a free and open society.

Sad day. :(

Freakshow

20th February 2006, 06:09 PM

RandFan

20th February 2006, 06:10 PM

And what's your position on creating false historical evidence? Same as anyother idiotic notion. Have at it.

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:11 PM

There are reasons I hate reading Cain's posts. Even when I agree with Cain.

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:14 PM

I will stand up for his right to be a crack-pot. I am for free speech, across the board. Yes, there are exceptions. But the bar for that is VERY high for me. It has to cross over into doing direct harm. You know what I mean...the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" test.

And, sadly, Freak, there are far too many who have decided that we're in a crowded theater in this day and age. We aren't. And Irving isn't shouting "Fire!" but rather, "I'm a half-wit!"

No crime in that. And actually, by announcing he's a racist dope, he's probably doing the world a favor. Gives me another reason to not read his gruesome apologia for Nazi atrocities.

20th February 2006, 06:15 PM

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:16 PM

Same as anyother idiotic notion. Have at it.

Sure. We'll just dump Irving on the same compost heap as ID, homeopathy, and anything written by Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, and John Edward.

20th February 2006, 06:18 PM

Irving has been imprisoned in a particular country - Austria, homeland of the Holocaust. Generalisations about free speech are fine and dandy, but Austrian democratic society has a right to protect itself. Austria and Hitler-apology make for a particular case. Irving was arrested on his way to address one of the Aryan-supremacist student societies that were a major contributor to the modern, scientistic, genocidal anti-semitism expressed in Nazism. They have an unbroken history stretching back to the mid-19thCE. Austrian democracy was not made safe in 1945. There are significant indigenous threats to it. Austria is the land of Haidar, the place where Kurt Waldheim's popularity rose with every revelation about his SS career. This is not a confected threat, like the Muslim threat to Danish free speech.

Banging-up Irving is indeed a case of suppression of free speech, but far more importantly it's a message to the anti-democratic Austrian fraction that the democratic gumment are not pussies. And it's a message to the swayable majority that such talk is beyond the pale.

I could change a few words and justify restricting a bunch of freedoms for the same reasons.

Are you really suggesting that the Austrians are so ... what ... fragile? malliable? childlike? that a loon like this represents a threat? If Austria is that on the edge of some horror based on this man's words they have a very, very large problem.

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:28 PM

I could change a few words and justify restricting a bunch of freedoms for the same reasons.

Are you really suggesting that the Austrians are so ... what ... fragile? malliable? childlike? that a loon like this represents a threat? If Austria is that on the edge of some horror based on this man's words they have a very, very large problem.

This is what's so damned frightening about this: Austria should have long ago dealt with this issue to a point that it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Supposedly, by examining themselves and what they did during the Anschluss, (or more accurately, what they didn't do), they should have taught generations of kids that horrible mistakes were made, and as a result, millions of Jews, Gypsies, political dissidents, religious opponents, as well as the aged and infirm, were murdered in the most horrific and systematic manner. It's an act that will haunt Europe for centuries, as readily as Stalin's murder of Ukrainians will haunt Russia, as readily as Ataturk's murder of the Armenians should haunt Turkey, as readily as the acts of the Khmer Rouge should haunt Cambodia. (Africa is still in the throes of its own horrors; it will take time for the nightmare to settle into the regional consciousness.)

20th February 2006, 06:30 PM

This is what's so damned frightening about this: Austria should have long ago dealt with this issue to a point that it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Supposedly, by examining themselves and what they did during the Anschluss, (or more accurately, what they didn't do), they should have taught generations of kids that horrible mistakes were made, and as a result, millions of Jews, Gypsies, political dissidents, religious opponents, as well as the aged and infirm, were murdered in the most horrific and systematic manner. It's an act that will haunt Europe for centuries, as readily as Stalin's murder of Ukrainians will haunt Russia, as readily as Ataturk's murder of the Armenians should haunt Turkey, as readily as the acts of the Khmer Rouge should haunt Cambodia. (Africa is still in the throes of its own horrors; it will take time for the nightmare to settle into the regional consciousness.)

But it's not that. It is a stupid nanny government "protecting" it's citizens from things that they need no protection from.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 06:39 PM

First let me say that IMO Austria should have fined Irving and not thrown him in jail. That said why is peddling in propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited worth running the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole?

20th February 2006, 06:43 PM

Roadtoad

20th February 2006, 06:51 PM

Well, in Irving's case, it IS crap, but there's something to be said for standing for the ideal.

Frankly, even a fine is a bad idea. Irving and those who follow him will wind up looking like buffoons in the end, and ultimately, they won't even look THAT good. In the end, it will serve them right.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2006, 07:58 PM

Because if it isn't crap, paradoxically, it isn't worth defending.Holocaust denial is a form of speech that is refused legal protection in Austria. Irving was prosecuted for that reason not because Austrians hate the freedom of speech.

That said, in cases where expression of opinion is combined with a fact, the right to express that opinion is protected, in cases where expression of opinion is combined with a fallacy that type of opinion is generally not protected. In Irving's case he was expressing an opinion that can be proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research. Hardly anything to wave the "freedom of speech" flag over.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 08:27 PM

Sure. We'll just dump Irving on the same compost heap as ID, homeopathy, and anything written by Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, and John Edward.

Hmm, so if I don't care for actual history I can:
* find antique paper, typewriters and ribbons
* create false letters and reports
* forge signatures to my heart's content?

If I do that, and I do that convincingly I rob the world of the truth of what really happened. Sorry, if governments can decide that counterfeit money and forged artwork is illegal, I think falisifying historical documents is even more of a crime.

As for how the USA govt treats psychics my understanding is that most of them have to have the words "for entertainment value only" printed nearby in small print. Otherwise they can have the book thrown at them too. Didn't someone post at JREF about the crooked psychic in FL who was convicted for fraud recently? Here's a link to a newspaper article:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pdelraypd17feb17,0,7213865.story?coll=sfla-news-palm (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pdelraypd17feb17,0,7213865.story?coll=sfla-news-palm)

RandFan

20th February 2006, 09:52 PM

RandFan

20th February 2006, 09:58 PM

Irving was prosecuted for that reason not because Austrians hate the freedom of speech.I don't know of a single example of a test of free speech that was the result of citizens hating freedom of speech.

I don't think this is a valid argument. Hating free speech is not the issue. The issue is not valuing free speech above other conflicting issues.

Kaylee

20th February 2006, 10:52 PM

Forgery is illegal. If that was what he did then he should go to jail. I don't mind regulating fraud for commercial gain.

Well per the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
that I referred to earlier (post #42) -- that’s what Holocaust deniers have been found to do, fabricate false evidence.

Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falsified evidence.

As to what David Irving specifically did, per Richard Evans he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
willfully mistranslated documents, {skip} and falsified historical statistics.

(Richard Evans is a professor of History at Cambridge and was hired by Lidstadt and Penguin Books when they were sued for libel by David Irving around the year 2000. He spent two years throughly reviewing David Irving's " history" on WWII and the Holocaust.)

The fact that Holocaust deniers falsify evidence is what really caught my attention. I also think that this should be illegal.

But this is thought police stuff. Big brother. I don't care if it is false. Free societies shouldn't be in the business of regulating speech.

Per an article in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5494602
No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you.

Per the same article in Wiki that I referenced above, many European countries are not specifically only prohibiting Holocaust denial speech but the

Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity.

In other words they are limiting speech that encourages genocide or denies that any genocide occurred -- not just the Holocaust. I would prefer that people be able to speak completely freely about it (but not make up false historical evidence for it) and I'm not in favor of having anti-holocaust or anti-genocide denial speech in the USA. However, considering Europe's very violent history I think its understandable that some of the European govts have decided to ban speech that denies genocide occurred. In the USA we ban speech that incites murder and racial riot. Considering European history it makes sense that they not only do the same (ban speech that incites murder (or genocide)) but added on that historical genocide cannot not be denied. Considering the context, its not that big of a stretch from how we limit free speech in the USA.

I think this quote from the Wiki article is interesting also, and helps non-Europeans understand why the govt has this law:

At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

Imagine going back in time to the early 1900s below the Mason-Dixon line. Perhaps it would have been better to have more stringent anti-hate speech laws in place then -- that might have cut down on the number of lynchings that occurred.

Free societies shouldn't be in the business of regulating speech.

So are you against libel laws? Just curious.

Ian Osborne

21st February 2006, 01:22 AM

IMO one cannot use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to break Austrian laws. Slander and Libel are illegal in many countries, as is giving false information in a court or to a police officer but people don't seem to scream "freedom of speech" in those instances.

No one is disputing that holocaust denial is against Austrian law. The issue is whether it should be.

Darat

21st February 2006, 02:16 AM

No one is disputing that holocaust denial is against Austrian law. The issue is whether it should be.

Since many people seem to consider shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre a reason to punish and/or prevent free speech perhaps this should be looked at more along the lines of "Did he shout "fire!" in a theatre?" If what he did was the equivalent to that then I would presume the people who do accept some limits on freedom of speech would agree with the Austrian position?

So perhaps the Austrian justification for this particular restriction on freedom of speech arises from a view that in their country Holocaust deniers are in fact shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire?

Unfortunately I really do not know enough detail about the internal state of Austria to form an informed conclusion on if what he did in Austria was the equivalent of shouting "fire". Athough I suspect (probably because of my bias toward freedom of speech) that it wasn't.

a_unique_person

21st February 2006, 02:27 AM

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 02:33 AM

I think that, considering what Nazism did to Austria, they have every right to control it. Amazingly enough, there are still hard core Nazis out there, ready to cause trouble if they are let off the leash.Very true.

No one is disputing that holocaust denial is against Austrian law. The issue is whether it should be.I have a few reasons why I do not have an issue with France, Germany and Austria having laws on the books where holocaust denial is not protected under the freedom of speech.

Saying the holocaust didn't happen has never been part of any academic or legitimate historical debate, in fact it is far outside the parameters of legitimate historical debate.
Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.
Holocaust denial can been proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings, photographs, testimony of nazis, the victims and bystanders, train schedules, deportation lists, diagrams of the camps, physical remains, aerial surveillance and extensive historical research.
The act of denying the Holocaust diminishes not just Jews but the experiences of all people who suffered in the Nazi death camps.

The issue is not "free speech" it is challenging people who knowingly falsify history, suppress the truth, distort the facts and frankly have a racist agenda. Or are you saying that Austria does not have the right to deny Holocaust denial legitimacy?

Ian Osborne

21st February 2006, 02:46 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 02:55 AM

Apparently some European countries have decided to limit from free speech "denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity." Considering the violence in European history, including what happened fairly recently in Bosnia and Slovakia --- that may be an excellent idea for Europeans. Since their laws appear to be consistent -- e.g. they are not treating one genocide differently from another (the Holocaust vs. the Armenian genocide in Turkey for example), I think its perfectly legit. I don't think this particular infringement on free speech will lead to a slippery slope anymore than other existing limitations (such as libel) on free speech laws.

What makes you think that the laws are consistent?

The European convention article quoted is, essentially, meaningless as it calls on parties to make such denial a crime unless 1) they only want to do so in cases where it is used to incite violence or 2) they don't want to.

I am not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for denial of any genocide other than the Holocaust.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 03:04 AM

I don't disagree with any of your bullet points, but I would question whether any or all of them justify the ban. Silencing those who deny the Holocaust makes martyrs out of morons and gives their cause a legitimacy it ill deserves.I agree. Making a free speech martyr out of a scumball like Irving so that people can run the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole is distasteful to me in the extreme.

For instance skeptics jump up and down over the frauds perpetrated by Sylvia Brown/James van Praagh/John Edward but have an issue with nazi-loving David Irving being slapped down by Austria for denying the deaths of millions of people. The dichotomy is weird to me.

Ian Osborne

21st February 2006, 03:14 AM

I agree. Making a free speech martyr out of a scumball like Irving so that people can run the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole is distasteful to me in the extreme.

It's the 'what are they trying to hide?' flag I'm more concerned about.

For instance skeptics jump up and down over the frauds perpetrated by Sylvia Brown/James van Praagh/John Edward but have an issue with David Irving being slapped down by Austria for denying the deaths of millions of people. The dichotomy is weird to me.

The key word here is 'fraud'. They're taking money from people and making specific claims about talking to their dead relatives. They're selling a service they're not providing. Irving is just writing bad history.

Incidentally, if we're to apply the Austrian attitude consistently, would we ban any historical work that questions formerly-held assumptions and upsets people in the process? Would we ban Henry Kamen's book on The Spanish Inquisition, for example, because it challenged the popularly-held view that it was an instrument of oppression? Kamen's work is a scholarly tome that deserves respect even if you don't agree with his conclusions, which is (of course) more than you can say for Irving's lying diatribes. But the fact is, if being wrong and upsetting people is enough to justify a ban, where do you draw the line?

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 03:22 AM

The key word here is 'fraud'. They're taking money from people and making specific claims about talking to their dead relatives. They're selling a service they're not providing. Irving is just writing bad history.Irving sells books and gives lectures denying the holocaust for profit. ;)

Incidentally, if we're to apply the Austrian attitude consistently, would we ban any historical work that questions formerly-held assumptions and upsets people in the process?That's the disconnect I am having trouble with. It's ok to question history, but it is not ok to sell books and give lectures for profit when the revisionism you are selling is proven to be propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited. Especially when the underlying goal is to rehabilitate Nazism and to deny an actual genocide.

Nancarrow

21st February 2006, 03:26 AM

On the other hand, I wonder if the people now standing up for the rights of the Danish press to publish the infamous cartoon, will also stand up for Irving's right to be a crack-pot.

Well I'll be the (n+1)th person in the thread to say, yes, absolutely.

These anti-holocaust-denial laws may have made some small sense for a very limited amount of time after WWII (say, 5-10 years) (and I'm not even sure about that) but there's absolutely no justification for them now, and they are an insult to the concept of free speech. I'm surprised the Austrian legislators cannot see how this action does more for the holocaust deniers' cause than David Irving could ever have done if we'd all just attend his lectures and guffaw loudly the whole time. Or of course tear him a new assh0le with some facts.

Actually this brings me to a wider criticism I have of politicians. There's the old saying 'when all you've got is a hammer, every problem is a nail'. It does seem to me that, by and large, politicians do not have the conceptual machinery to respond to any problem other than by trying to ban something. Or metaphorically declare war on it. Or both. Which is sad. :(

David Swidler

21st February 2006, 03:27 AM

The key word here is 'fraud'. They're taking money from people and making specific claims about talking to their dead relatives. They're selling a service they're not providing. Irving is just writing bad history.

But it is fraud. Irving peddles his garbage to the credulous neo-Nazis while Browne and Edwards et al. peddle theirs to the credulous woo. Do we distinguish between fraud with a political agenda from fraud with a commercial agenda?

21st February 2006, 03:46 AM

I think that, considering what Nazism did to Austria, they have every right to control it. Amazingly enough, there are still hard core Nazis out there, ready to cause trouble if they are let off the leash.

So you defend free speech to the death except when the speech is determined by a government to be dangerous and their people must be protected. Does that sum it up?

a_unique_person

21st February 2006, 03:48 AM

When did I defend free speech to the death?

21st February 2006, 03:50 AM

Very true.

I have a few reasons why I do not have an issue with France, Germany and Austria having laws on the books where holocaust denial is not protected under the freedom of speech.

Saying the holocaust didn't happen has never been part of any academic or legitimate historical debate, in fact it is far outside the parameters of legitimate historical debate.
Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.
Holocaust denial can been proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings, photographs, testimony of nazis, the victims and bystanders, train schedules, deportation lists, diagrams of the camps, physical remains, aerial surveillance and extensive historical research.
The act of denying the Holocaust diminishes not just Jews but the experiences of all people who suffered in the Nazi death camps.
The issue is not "free speech" it is challenging people who knowingly falsify history, suppress the truth, distort the facts and frankly have a racist agenda. Or are you saying that Austria does not have the right to deny Holocaust denial legitimacy?

A government throwing a person in jail for their speech is facism. I ask again: is the population of Austria so on the verge of nazism that Irving represents a threat?

21st February 2006, 03:52 AM

When did I defend free speech to the death?

I thought that you were strongly in favor of individual liberties. I forget that nanny governments and laws for the greater good appeal to you. Never mind.

a_unique_person

21st February 2006, 03:52 AM

One day, you will be in my power.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 03:57 AM

A government throwing a person in jail for their speech is facism. I ask again: is the population of Austria so on the verge of nazism that Irving represents a threat?

Let's say there was a guy who peddled propoganda that was false about Ed to other people who really hated Ed. These people who hate Ed are quite open about seeing Ed, Ed's family and everyone similar to Ed swinging from the end of a rope or marched into a gas chamber. Would you - Ed - want laws to protect you - Ed - from such people?

Or would you run the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole, scream facism and defend the proven-to-be-false anti-Ed propganda?

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 04:30 AM

While you mull my question over Ed I once read that Holocaust denial, like the Holocaust itself, is without precedent: no one, not even propaganda king Joseph Goebbels produced and perpetuated a lie so void in fact. By denying the holocaust - for profit - guys like Irving sell a conspiracy theory that involves hundreds of thousands of lying witnesses and at least an equal number of falsified documents, all of them accepted by thousands of otherwise sensible historians who are "in" on the conspiracy.

Ian Osborne

21st February 2006, 04:57 AM

Irving sells books and gives lectures denying the holocaust for profit. ;)

So how far would you go in banning books and lectures which ran against the accepted grain of history? What else would you ban because you didn't feel it was accurate enough to be acceptable? And, perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide what's banned and what isn't? Irving may have falsified evidence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he's saying, and nor does it mean his perspective is automatically wrong. It just means he's a bad historian, and should be called on it by people who can rip him a new butthole with the facts.

I remember a cartoon in MAD magazine, in which two teachers were discussing the upcoming academic year. "It's a disgrace", said one, "how many books are banned for use in schools these days". "No, it's great", says his friend. "If there's a book I want my students to read, I just put it on the banned list." This is what we're doing to Irving.

Holocaust denial's the thin end of the wedge. No one would miss them if they all died tomorrow. Which is precisely why their right to free speech must be defended before the next domino falls...

Geckko

21st February 2006, 05:09 AM

Since many people seem to consider shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre a reason to punish and/or prevent free speech perhaps this should be looked at more along the lines of "Did he shout "fire!" in a theatre?" If what he did was the equivalent to that then I would presume the people who do accept some limits on freedom of speech would agree with the Austrian position?

So perhaps the Austrian justification for this particular restriction on freedom of speech arises from a view that in their country Holocaust deniers are in fact shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire?

Unfortunately I really do not know enough detail about the internal state of Austria to form an informed conclusion on if what he did in Austria was the equivalent of shouting "fire". Athough I suspect (probably because of my bias toward freedom of speech) that it wasn't.

Most countries seem to have that angle covered via incitement legislation. I imagine Austria is similar. It is based on the possible effect (a reall threat that people could get injured in your example), as opposed to the substance of the outburst (a claim that there is a fire).

So if it was incitement to violence, why not make that case instead?

In this case we have had a criminal prosecution on the basis of the substance, not the effect which I think is distinctly different.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 05:13 AM

So how far would you go in banning books and lectures which ran against the accepted grain of history? What else would you ban because you didn't feel it was accurate enough to be acceptable?Ok. I will pose the same unanswered question to you.

Let's say there was a guy who peddled propoganda that was false about Ian Osborne to other people who really hated Ian Osborne. These people who hate Ian Osborne are quite open about seeing Ian Osborne, Ian Osborne's family and everyone similar to Ian Osborne swinging from the end of a rope or marched into a gas chamber. Would you - Ian Osborne - want laws to protect you - Ian Osborne - from such people?

Or would you run the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole, scream facism!, censorship! and defend to your last breath the proven-to-be-false anti-Ian Osborne propganda?

21st February 2006, 05:19 AM

One day, you will be in my power.

You'd love that, sailor.:D

21st February 2006, 05:20 AM

Yes, this certainly gives us the moral highground in the Arab world.

Mohammad=bad
Jews=good

Excellent.

Ian Osborne

21st February 2006, 05:32 AM

Let's say there was a guy who peddled propoganda that was false about Ian Osborne to other people who really hated Ian Osborne. These people who hate Ian Osborne are quite open about seeing Ian Osborne, Ian Osborne's family and everyone similar to Ian Osborne swinging from the end of a rope or marched into a gas chamber. Would you - Ian Osborne - want laws to protect you - Ian Osborne - from such people?

Then Ian Osborne could take civil action for libel or the police could take action for incitement. As Geckko said, "In this case we have had a criminal prosecution on the basis of the substance, not the effect which I think is distinctly different".

21st February 2006, 05:53 AM

Let's say there was a guy who peddled propoganda that was false about Ed to other people who really hated Ed. These people who hate Ed are quite open about seeing Ed, Ed's family and everyone similar to Ed swinging from the end of a rope or marched into a gas chamber. Would you - Ed - want laws to protect you - Ed - from such people?

Or would you run the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole, scream facism and defend the proven-to-be-false anti-Ed propganda?

I have laws that protect me from such people. Incitment to murder is a crime. Libel is actionable.

I would hope that I would have the courage to defend a jerk doing such stuff. I don't really know and that is the truth.

Now, do you suggest that the people of Austria, who are being protected, hate the jews and are just waiting for the right collection of words to go on a murderous spree?

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 06:50 AM

Since many people seem to consider shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre a reason to punish and/or prevent free speech perhaps this should be looked at more along the lines of "Did he shout "fire!" in a theatre?" If what he did was the equivalent to that then I would presume the people who do accept some limits on freedom of speech would agree with the Austrian position?

So perhaps the Austrian justification for this particular restriction on freedom of speech arises from a view that in their country Holocaust deniers are in fact shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire?

Unfortunately I really do not know enough detail about the internal state of Austria to form an informed conclusion on if what he did in Austria was the equivalent of shouting "fire". Athough I suspect (probably because of my bias toward freedom of speech) that it wasn't.

He shouted "Fire!" back in 1989. That is one of the things he is being prosecuted for. That theater is empty, the movie is on DVD, and has been remade.

So, please.

And he is being prosecuted for breaking a 1992 law. Ex post facto.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 06:54 AM

Then Ian Osborne could take civil action for libel or the police could take action for incitement.IMO rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is incitement. But that is just my opinion.

I have laws that protect me from such people. Incitment to murder is a crime. Libel is actionable. But there should not be laws against propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited that diminishes not just Jews but the experiences of all people who suffered in the Nazi death camps. Ok. I see which way the wind blows. Fair enough. ;)

Darat

21st February 2006, 06:55 AM

...snip...

So, please.

"So, please." - did you miss something off your reply?

And he is being prosecuted for breaking a 1992 law. Ex post facto.

Really - that sounds bad - have you a source?

Chaos

21st February 2006, 06:58 AM

Hmm, so if I don't care for actual history I can:
* find antique paper, typewriters and ribbons
* create false letters and reports
* forge signatures to my heart's content?

If I do that, and I do that convincingly I rob the world of the truth of what really happened. Sorry, if governments can decide that counterfeit money and forged artwork is illegal, I think falisifying historical documents is even more of a crime.

As for how the USA govt treats psychics my understanding is that most of them have to have the words "for entertainment value only" printed nearby in small print. Otherwise they can have the book thrown at them too. Didn't someone post at JREF about the crooked psychic in FL who was convicted for fraud recently? Here's a link to a newspaper article:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pdelraypd17feb17,0,7213865.story?coll=sfla-news-palm (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pdelraypd17feb17,0,7213865.story?coll=sfla-news-palm)

I think you make an interesting point. Irving´s works are meant to be history non-fiction books. They will one day be used as historical documents (second-hand sources). Therefore if Irving knowingly and willingly falsifies historical data, in an effort to make the most vile bunch of mass murderers that ever existed look harmless, and thus to pave the way for the next Nazi regime, and another Holocaust, he IS committing fraud, or something very similar to it. He is also, by claiming the Holocaust was invented, libelling pretty much every jew alive after 1945 because he (implicitly or explicitly) claims they invented the Holocaust and extorted money for it from Germany, among other things.

And I am willing to bet anything that, once that happens, the same people who are going on and on about "freedom of speech" now will then be asking: "Why didn´t you do anything about this guy! It was so obvious he was up to no good? Why didn´t you look him up while you still could?"
That is, if Irving and his successors and their favorite political movement didn´t gas or hang them.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 07:16 AM

"So, please." - did you miss something off your reply?

The shouting of "Fire" in a crowded theater is restricted because of the clear and present danger. So, please, show how his 1989 speeches are a clear and present danger or incited riots or pogroms or whathaveyou.

Really - that sounds bad - have you a source?

Most any news link about it.

Irving seems to have had a long-running battle with the Austrian government; the AP says he was charged in 1989 as a result of two speeches he gave in that year, and pled guilty under a law passed in 1992.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013210.php

British historian David Irving, 67, had pleaded guilty, saying he erred insome of his remarks during a 1989 speech in Vienna.

...

A 1992 statute applies to anyone who "denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide."

...
Irving has been held without bail since Nov. 11, when he was arrested in Austria on an outstanding warrant for his 1989 speech.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393403p-333442c.html

Irving has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews.

...

The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/02/20/ap2539581.html

Ex post facto.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 07:21 AM

Specifics of what Irving said in 1989:

Specifically he was accused of saying the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews - the precursor to their mass murder - was carried out by agitators dressed as Nazis.

Secondly, he was charged with claiming Adolf Hitler was not involved in the Holocaust and even "extended his protective hand" towards the Jews. Thirdly, he was accused of denying the existence of the gas chambers.

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=377818&in_page_id=1770).

And this goes to a post I made yesterday in a similar topic in Community:

1992: Said: "I am not anticoloured; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport and to see a black father, black wife and black children. When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.

"But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, it is this - when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they're reading it to me."

Separatism. That is the motive behind holocaust deniers. They "why" of what they do.

RandFan

21st February 2006, 07:24 AM

The fact that Holocaust deniers falsify evidence is what really caught my attention. I also think that this should be illegal. We are in agreement that falsifying documents should be illegal.

In other words they are limiting speech that encourages genocide... Problematic. I'm certainly not for genocide. If someone specifically encourages genocide "hey go kill this group of people" then I'm not against regulating such speech. Any laws should be narrowly defined to prevent real and eminent danger not theoretical and future danger.

...or denies that any genocide occurred -- not just the Holocaust. Excrement! This is thought police stuff. Not good for free and open societies.

I would prefer that people be able to speak completely freely about it (but not make up false historical evidence for it) and I'm not in favor of having anti-holocaust or anti-genocide denial speech in the USA. However, considering Europe's very violent history I think its understandable that some of the European govts have decided to ban speech that denies genocide occurred. It's not understandable at all.

In the USA we ban speech that incites murder and racial riot. Considering European history it makes sense that they not only do the same (ban speech that incites murder (or genocide)) but added on that historical genocide cannot not be denied. Considering the context, its not that big of a stretch from how we limit free speech in the USA. Sure, craft any exception you want. Why not, hell, violent video games and rock music ought to be next. :(

I think this quote from the Wiki article is interesting also, and helps non-Europeans understand why the govt has this law: It's bulls***.

Imagine going back in time to the early 1900s below the Mason-Dixon line. Perhaps it would have been better to have more stringent anti-hate speech laws in place then -- that might have cut down on the number of lynchings that occurred. Sure, and perhaps if we stopped movies like Natural Born Killers there will be less murders. Sorry, living in a free and open society comes with risks. Sure we could have the thought police and reduce violent crime. It works wonders in Saudi Arabia, and hell, who is for violent crime, right? So you've got to be for regulating freedoms.

So are you against libel laws? Just curious. I'm for laws against malicious speech that could damage the reputation of a specific person. Such laws must be narrow. Denying the Holocaust does not meet the criteria.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 07:32 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 07:35 AM

Since their laws appear to be consistent -- e.g. they are not treating one genocide differently from another (the Holocaust vs. the Armenian genocide in Turkey for example), I think its perfectly legit.

"The prosecutors filed charges under the 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism, specifically a paragraph criminalising the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes"."

It would appear that the law is NOT at all consistent and treats one genocide differently from all others.

Does that change your view on whether it is legit?

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 07:39 AM

We're talking about comments made in 1989.

1989.

The supposition that this speech is being prosecuted 17 years later, or that the law exists against it, is because it might incite riots or mayhem is insane. I don't even see where the prosecution even tried to make a case that his 1989 remarks incited riots or murders or anything.

Why would they? It was not necessary for them to do so for two reasons:

Under the legislation, they did not need to prove incitement, simply that he had made the comments. Do prosecutors routinely spend time trying to prove things that our not necessary to secure a conviction?

And possibly more importantly, he pled guilty. Therefore the prosecution did not need to make a case at all.

I don't understand why the lapse of time should change the outcome - how long do you need to avoid justice to have charges dropped?

Had he shouted "fire" in a theatre 19 years ago, he would still be liable to be charged for that. This is irrespective of whether anyone was actually injured or not.

FTAOD, I think the law is wrong, but disagree with the specifics under which you are attacking it.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 07:54 AM

What makes you think that the laws are consistent?

The European convention article quoted is, essentially, meaningless as it calls on parties to make such denial a crime unless 1) they only want to do so in cases where it is used to incite violence or 2) they don't want to.

I am not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for denial of any genocide other than the Holocaust.
I never lived or traveled extensively (or even briefly :( ) in any of the 11 European countries on record of having anti-Holocaust denial speech laws. If I read something that tells me that its just not anti-Holocaust denial speech that is being limited from free speech but all anti-genocide denial speech -- I have to go by what I read. Unless I can find proof that its not true or forged evidence ....

You say the European convention article is meaningless. Care to explain or back up that comment? The Wiki article said that its what the European courts use to explain why certain speech is limited when defendents say that they ought to have freedom of speech to deny that a genocide took place.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 08:09 AM

I never lived or traveled extensively (or even briefly :( ) in any of the 11 European countries on record of having anti-Holocaust denial speech laws. If I read something that tells me that its just not anti-Holocaust denial speech that is being limited from free speech but all anti-genocide denial speech -- I have to go by what I read. Unless I can find proof that its not true or forged evidence ....

You say the European convention article is meaningless. Care to explain or back up that comment? The Wiki article said that its what the European courts use to explain why certain speech is limited when defendents say that they ought to have freedom of speech to deny that a genocide took place.

Agreed - I can't find any original material outlining what the legislation actually says either (and even if I could I can't read German). And I meant to include the source for the quotation used but I forgot - it is an article from the Guardian in Nov 05 reproduced here:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

On the convention article if you follow the link in your original post and then the link to the article in the actual convention, the full text reads:

"Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.

2 A Party may either

a require that the denial or the gross minimisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise

b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article."

In other words the convention says you must pass laws making these things a crime.

Unless you want to only make it a crime if there is intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence. OR

Unless you don't want to make them a crime.

Or to simplify it down even further - if any nation wants to make these illegal under domestic law it can, but it doesn't have to.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 08:32 AM

So how far would you go in banning books and lectures which ran against the accepted grain of history?

I would make it illegal to falsify historical evidence. Oh wait a minute, it already is.

What else would you ban because you didn't feel it was accurate enough to be acceptable?

I would make historical documents forged with an intent to deceive a crime regardless of which era or geographic area it was suppose to belong to. Oh wait a minute, it already is.

{skip}Irving may have falsified evidence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he's saying, and nor does it mean his perspective is automatically wrong.

That doesn't make sense. If he could find evidence to back up his version of history, logically it must mean that his version of history never existed. He was very active in creating false evidence. Per Richard Evans he:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
willfully mistranslated documents, {skip} and falsified historical statistics.

Richard Evans is a professor of history at Cambridge who spent two years researching all of David Irvings writings.

It just means he's a bad historian,

No. There's a difference between being incompetent and being a criminal. Forging historical documents is a crime.

and should be called on it by people who can rip him a new butthole with the facts.

And that’s what happened.

21st February 2006, 08:37 AM

I don't understand why the lapse of time should change the outcome - how long do you need to avoid justice to have charges dropped?

Had he shouted "fire" in a theatre 19 years ago, he would still be liable to be charged for that. This is irrespective of whether anyone was actually injured or not.

FTAOD, I think the law is wrong, but disagree with the specifics under which you are attacking it.

7 years. There is no statute of limitations on murder though.

ex post facto laws are flat out illegal.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER) or ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ENUMERATE) herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses modified by Amendment XVI (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16).)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY) shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EMOLUMENT), Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL); coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CREDIT); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER), ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY).

wolfgirl

21st February 2006, 08:38 AM

Some of you have tried to put a personal spin on this question, and I'm going to attempt to do the same.

I am an atheist, as I believe many others here are. We live in a country that is overwhelmingly not atheist. We are a minority here and not well liked by many of the majority. At this time, the xians have most of the power in the government. So far, this is all true.

Now let's say one day they decide that we are a danger to them and we mustn't be allowed to say what we think about religion. They make it a crime to deny that Jesus was the son of God, blah, blah, blah. Evolution is no longer allowed to be taught. After a while, with no sounds to the contrary, everyone simply knows that xianity is correct, and there is no longer anyone who denies it because they will be arrested if they do. Anyone who says that maybe there isn't something quite right about the xian religion is renounced as a crackpot.

Just because the majority, even the vast majority, thinks that something is correct, doesn't mean that those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to speak their case. What if there is even a grain of truth to what they're saying? Should they just be shut down so that history will have only one account of what happened? And that one account is dictated by the majority, who now have been given complete and total control over what anyone can learn or read or even say about that topic, so there is no chance that any dissenting opinions could ever be heard.

Sounds scary to me.

I will reiterate (before I am blasted) that I don't deny the Holocaust happened, or that millions of people (Jewish and otherwise) suffered horribly and died at the hands of the Nazis. I just think that the subject should always be open for discussion. If there are any questions about what exactly happened, those questions should never be silenced. Just like anything in history, there will always be some debate about the specifics. And that's a good thing. Having one group of people decide how history will be written is dangerous.

Everyone who questions anything to do with the Holocaust is not a Holocaust-denier, but just a curious inquisitor.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 08:46 AM

7 years. There is no statute of limitations on murder though.

ex post facto laws are flat out illegal.

7 years seems a very short period. Is that until the crime is reported or until the case is heard?

Does that mean that those involved in child abuse scandals that do not come to light until years later cannot be tried? (A quick google suggests this is indeed the case.)

How does this apply to situations like this where the accused is outside the jursidiction of the court? Provided they stay away long enough they get away with it?

ex post facto are illegal and I think would be thrown out under EU law. Other reports suggest that the laws Irving was charged under date back to 1947 so I wonder if the reference to 1992 refer to a consolidation of existing law rather than an introduction of a new offence.

21st February 2006, 08:47 AM

The problem with anything other than free speech is that it might very well be turned on you, with elequent justifications and appeals for the common good and so on.

RandFan

21st February 2006, 08:51 AM

21st February 2006, 08:52 AM

7 years seems a very short period. Is that until the crime is reported or until the case is heard?

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then. There is a case pending now using DNA as a means of identification that hinges on exactly when the charges were filed.

Does that mean that those involved in child abuse scandals that do not come to light until years later cannot be tried? (A quick google suggests this is indeed the case.)

Yuppsie. Big problem with these kinds of cases. I think that there are exceptions for child abuse being considered here and there.

How does this apply to situations like this where the accused is outside the jursidiction of the court? Provided they stay away long enough they get away with it?

US law is US. That is why we are better than other countries. :p

If one breaks another country's law and one is silly enough to travel there, tough titties.

ex post facto are illegal and I think would be thrown out under EU law. Other reports suggest that the laws Irving was charged under date back to 1947 so I wonder if the reference to 1992 refer to a consolidation of existing law rather than an introduction of a new offence.

Maybe. ex post facto laws are very, very scarey. Particularly if they have to do with speech. I guess we could just burn offending books if the laws change.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 08:55 AM

I think you make an interesting point. Irving´s works are meant to be history non-fiction books. They will one day be used as historical documents (second-hand sources). Therefore if Irving knowingly and willingly falsifies historical data, in an effort to make the most vile bunch of mass murderers that ever existed look harmless, and thus to pave the way for the next Nazi regime, and another Holocaust, he IS committing fraud

{skip}

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts. :D

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 08:59 AM

In regard to the Europeans laws against holocaust denial and genocide denial, perhaps they function to deal with certain gaps? For example:

*Libel laws exist for individuals but not for an entire ethnic or racial group.

*Most people who are defrauded by being sold books based not on actual historical documents but on historical documents forged by the author would probably not be in a financial position to sue him or her.

So on that basis these anti-genocide denial laws appear to pick up the gap where they are needed. The fact that 11 European countries went just a little beyond the American approach of banning hate speech just might make sense. I think laws banning genocide denial speech is very close to anti-hate speech laws.

I think the forum agrees that its an evil neccesity that some speech be limited from free speech protection. We differ where it makes sense to have that boundary fall. My opinion is that some countries may have decided to be more stringent in that area because of their history and also because of current challenges they may have with internal ethnic strife.

RandFan

21st February 2006, 09:02 AM

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts. :D? The notion is silly. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. So we are going to outlaw that which is not considered by todays conventional wisdom to be true? Really? I hope we are smarter than that.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 09:06 AM

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then. There is a case pending now using DNA as a means of identification that hinges on exactly when the charges were filed.

The arrest warrant under which Irving was arrested was issued in November 1989 - presumably that would be sufficient action to meet the necessary time constraints?

US law is US. That is why we are better than other countries. :p

If one breaks another country's law and one is silly enough to travel there, tough titties.

But presumably you can be indited in your absence? If so then you can't avoid the charge by skipping the country for long enough.

Maybe. ex post facto laws are very, very scarey. Particularly if they have to do with speech. I guess we could just burn offending books if the laws change.

Agreed

RandFan

21st February 2006, 09:09 AM

*Most people who are defrauded by being sold books based not on actual historical documents but on historical documents forged by the author would probably not be in a financial position to sue him or her. Been there done that. If this is a problem then narrowly craft laws to criminalize forging historical documents for financial gain. There is no need for thought police.

So on that basis these anti-genocide denial laws appear to pick up the gap where they are needed. The fact that 11 European countries went just a little beyond the American approach of banning hate speech just might make sense. I think laws banning genocide denial speech is very close to anti-hate speech laws. Where have we banned hate speech? I'm actively campaigning against such idiotic rules in institutions of higher learning but I didn't know of any such laws outside of academia and perhaps some workplace rules. Help me out here?

I think the forum agrees that its an evil neccesity that some speech be limited from free speech protection. Yes, but be damn careful what you ban. Be narrow in your focus. Prohibit only that which can cause specific harm to an individual or pose an eminent threat to life and property.

We differ where it makes sense to have that boundary fall. My opinion is that some countries may have decided to be more stringent in that area because of their history and also because of current challenges they may have with internal ethnic strife.Yes, so let's call out the thought police.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 09:28 AM

He shouted "Fire!" back in 1989. That is one of the things he is being prosecuted for. That theater is empty, the movie is on DVD, and has been remade.

So, please.

And he is being prosecuted for breaking a 1992 law. Ex post facto.

Per the article Jaggy directed me to:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

The prosecutors filed charges under the 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism, specifically a paragraph criminalising the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes".

"A charge was filed in relation to two speeches in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers," said Otto Schneider of the Vienna prosecutor's office. He added that the alleged offences would carry a sentence of up to 10 years' jail.

So per this report there's no ex post facto involved.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 09:31 AM

? The notion is silly. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. So we are going to outlaw that which is not considered by todays conventional wisdom to be true? Really? I hope we are smarter than that.

Umm, as far as I know there is no doubt that Irving falsified historical documents.

drkitten

21st February 2006, 09:36 AM

I just think that the subject should always be open for discussion.

But Irving didn't "discuss" anything.

Unless you consider forgery, misrepresentation, and outright lying to be a form of discussion.

This was very clear in the Irving libel trial. It wasn't a trial about whether or not scholars should be permitted to study the Holocaust. It was whether or not what Irving did qualified as scholarship, or as Holocaust denial -- and the answer was very clearly, no, it wasn't scholarship.

Everyone who questions anything to do with the Holocaust is not a Holocaust-denier, but just a curious inquisitor.

But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.

Cleon

21st February 2006, 09:38 AM

Umm, as far as I know there is no doubt that Irving falsified historical documents.

Except that's not what he's being imprisoned for, is it?

drkitten

21st February 2006, 09:40 AM

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then.

And it did. The indictment happened in 1989.

Yuppsie. Big problem with these kinds of cases. I think that there are exceptions for child abuse being considered here and there.

On the other hand, if you are actually charged, and you leave the jurisdiction, the indictment (and arrest warrant, &c) will be valid forever.

ex post facto laws are very, very scarey.

Absolutely. Good thing this wasn't an ex post facto law, then.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 09:42 AM

But Irving didn't "discuss" anything.

Unless you consider forgery, misrepresentation, and outright lying to be a form of discussion.

This was very clear in the Irving libel trial. It wasn't a trial about whether or not scholars should be permitted to study the Holocaust. It was whether or not what Irving did qualified as scholarship, or as Holocaust denial -- and the answer was very clearly, no, it wasn't scholarship.

But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.

Speaking as a non-lawyer, surely the point of the libel trial was whether the various statements made about him were true or not.

One of those statements was that he was a holocaust denier, which was found to be true. I don't see that the libel trial would care whether he denied the holocaust based on scholarship or bigotry (although given the other statements that were found to be true it is pretty clear it was bigotry) because once it is established that he IS a holocaust denier then you cannot libel him by calling him one.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 09:58 AM

Agreed - I can't find any original material outlining what the legislation actually says either (and even if I could I can't read German). And I meant to include the source for the quotation used but I forgot - it is an article from the Guardian in Nov 05 reproduced here:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

On the convention article if you follow the link in your original post and then the link to the article in the actual convention, the full text reads:

"Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.

2 A Party may either

a require that the denial or the gross minimisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise

b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article."

In other words the convention says you must pass laws making these things a crime.

Unless you want to only make it a crime if there is intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence. OR

Unless you don't want to make them a crime.

Or to simplify it down even further - if any nation wants to make these illegal under domestic law it can, but it doesn't have to.

The Wiki article was rewritten since I last looked at it. (That page gets revised very frequently, its amazing. ) Here is how the pertinent section reads now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights), which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

I don't understand your comments though. (Or why Article 6 got dropped from the revised Wiki article :confused: ). Since Europeans can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, aren't the member countries agreeing to a set of the same rules. How else can they use one court?

I admit I'm getting a little tired though. I think its time for me to take a break from international law. ;) But I'll be back! By tomorrow night if not before. </end Schwarzenegger mode>

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 10:03 AM

{skip} If this is a problem then narrowly craft laws to criminalize forging historical documents for financial gain.
I like that idea.

Where have we banned hate speech?
I'll see what I can track down. I'm taking a break though, real life interferes.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 10:12 AM

Except that's not what he's being imprisoned for, is it?

Discussed in post #62.

Also, I don't think laws limiting genocide denial from free speech can be considered in a vacuum. Holocaust deniers invariably falsify documents to back up their claims. If they stuck to actual historical documents they would not be able to deny that genocide took place.

drkitten

21st February 2006, 10:15 AM

Speaking as a non-lawyer, surely the point of the libel trial was whether the various statements made about him were true or not.

One of those statements was that he was a holocaust denier, which was found to be true.

Not quite. You're oversimplifying somewhat. The term "Holocaust denier" is not self-defining, and has a meaning rather distinct from someone simply saying "the Holocaust didn't happen."

I don't see that the libel trial would care whether he denied the holocaust based on scholarship or bigotry (although given the other statements that were found to be true it is pretty clear it was bigotry)

But the bigotry (instead of the scholarship) aspects are a key part of what "Holocaust denier" means.

In broadest possible terms, the only reason the term "Holocaust denier" is libellous is because it implies that one cannot be a good scholar and a Holocaust denier simultaneously. This could have been one of Penguin Books' escape route -- essentially, denying that the term "Holocaust denier" is anything but a factually-neutral descriptor. Penguin could have argued that the term "Holocaust denier" is no more pejorative than calling someone a "Red Sox fan" or "left-handed."

Penguin did not make this argument, in my mind correctly. I think it's correct because there is a very well established scholarly tradition about the elements of Holocaust denial, and implicit in these elements is an aspect of bad scholarship -- sloppy at a minimum, and more likely outright false and misleading.

So Penguin proposed (and the judge accepted) that merely making statements questioning the reality of the Holocaust would not be sufficient to establish one as a "Holocaust denier." That's a key aspect of both cases -- the words don't mean what you may naively think them to mean. And in particular, Penguin was perfectly willing to stipulate that their burden of proof necessary to succeed in the case was much higher than merely meeting a literal naive interpretation.

And, as the record shows, they had no problem meeting the higher burden of proof.

Case law is fairly clear, in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history. Had that been the case, the Irving case would have been much, much shorter.\

once it is established that he IS a holocaust denier then you cannot libel him by calling him one.

But that's the thing. To establish that he "is" a Holocaust denier, you need to establish much more than simply that he said "the holocaust may not have happened."

Cleon

21st February 2006, 10:16 AM

Discussed in post #62.

You mean "dodged," not "discussed." It's a different thing, you see.

Also, I don't think laws limiting genocide denial from free speech can be considered in a vacuum. Holocaust deniers invariably falsify documents to back up their claims. If they stuck to actual historical documents they would not be able to deny that genocide took place.

But again, forging historical documents is NOT what he's being imprisoned for. Or even *accused* of, for that matter.

He's being imprisoned for having the wrong opinion. Any way you slice, dice, or chop it, that's the crux of the matter.

21st February 2006, 10:18 AM

The arrest warrant under which Irving was arrested was issued in November 1989 - presumably that would be sufficient action to meet the necessary time constraints?

Absolutely. You may recall there is an ancient arrest warrent out for Roman Polansky for popping an underage girl. Don't look for him at the Oscars anytime soon.

But presumably you can be indited in your absence? If so then you can't avoid the charge by skipping the country for long enough.

There are tons of outstanding inditements where the person has skipped to a country that won't extradite. When they come home ... gotcha. Bernie Cornfeld comes to mind for some reason.

wolfgirl

21st February 2006, 10:49 AM

But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.If you look back, you'll see that I clearly made these two separate groups of people.

1. Holocaust-deniers - by my definition, those who deny that the Holocaust took place. And you're right, they are probably not curious inquisitors, but more likely racist, or just misinformed.

2. Those who question certain aspects of the history of the Holocaust - these I clearly said were not Holocaust-deniers (again, by my definition), but curious inquisitors. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that there are details that have not been fully explained or explored, and can't be because the very act of asking the questions is considered racist and, apparently, even illegal.

The fact that these two groups of people are often lumped together (as you did yourself) is what I have a problem with. Nobody is allowed to question ANYTHING to do with the Holocaust for fear of being labeled a crackpot or worse.

I do believe that both of these groups of people have the right, though, to voice their opinions. Let what they have to say stand up for itself (or fall down on itself, as the case may be).

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 10:50 AM

The Wiki article was rewritten since I last looked at it. (That page gets revised very frequently, its amazing. ) Here is how the pertinent section reads now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

I don't understand your comments though. (Or why Article 6 got dropped from the revised Wiki article :confused: ). Since Europeans can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, aren't the member countries agreeing to a set of the same rules. How else can they use one court?

I admit I'm getting a little tired though. I think its time for me to take a break from international law. ;) But I'll be back! By tomorrow night if not before. </end Schwarzenegger mode>

Nope - each country has their own national laws. Appeals to the European court occur when one party believes the national laws conflict with European laws. As the article of the convention does not require any nation to have or not have laws against holocaust denial, then it is essentially meaningless.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st February 2006, 10:53 AM

Not quite. You're oversimplifying somewhat. The term "Holocaust denier" is not self-defining, and has a meaning rather distinct from someone simply saying "the Holocaust didn't happen."

But the bigotry (instead of the scholarship) aspects are a key part of what "Holocaust denier" means.

In broadest possible terms, the only reason the term "Holocaust denier" is libellous is because it implies that one cannot be a good scholar and a Holocaust denier simultaneously. This could have been one of Penguin Books' escape route -- essentially, denying that the term "Holocaust denier" is anything but a factually-neutral descriptor. Penguin could have argued that the term "Holocaust denier" is no more pejorative than calling someone a "Red Sox fan" or "left-handed."

Penguin did not make this argument, in my mind correctly. I think it's correct because there is a very well established scholarly tradition about the elements of Holocaust denial, and implicit in these elements is an aspect of bad scholarship -- sloppy at a minimum, and more likely outright false and misleading.

So Penguin proposed (and the judge accepted) that merely making statements questioning the reality of the Holocaust would not be sufficient to establish one as a "Holocaust denier." That's a key aspect of both cases -- the words don't mean what you may naively think them to mean. And in particular, Penguin was perfectly willing to stipulate that their burden of proof necessary to succeed in the case was much higher than merely meeting a literal naive interpretation.

And, as the record shows, they had no problem meeting the higher burden of proof.

Case law is fairly clear, in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history. Had that been the case, the Irving case would have been much, much shorter.\

But that's the thing. To establish that he "is" a Holocaust denier, you need to establish much more than simply that he said "the holocaust may not have happened."

Can I count this as tomorrow's new thing learned?

drkitten

21st February 2006, 11:25 AM

If you look back, you'll see that I clearly made these two separate groups of people.

No, you didn't. In fact, you are lumping them together yourself, by suggesting that the treatment appropriate to curious inquisitors must be the same as the one appropriate to (narrowly defined) Holocaust deniers. And I specifically reject your guggestion.

The fact that these two groups of people are often lumped together (as you did yourself) is what I have a problem with. Nobody is allowed to question ANYTHING to do with the Holocaust for fear of being labeled a crackpot or worse.

Except that's not true. Well, I suppose in a limited sense it's true, since anyone can attempt to label anyone else for anything. But if you're going to start invoking rule-of-law instead of just rule-of-gossip, then the role of questioning -- and more specifically, of the treatment of evidence -- is very relevant. And fortunately, for the most part, the courts have recognized this need and have been fairly good at filling it.

See my response to Jaggy above regarding Irving's libel suit. Penguin Books (or more specifically, their author Deborah Lipschitz) called Irving a "Holocaust denier," to which he took exception and about which he filed suit. Penguin could have attempted to lump both groups, the genuine racist, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi nutcases, and the legitimate scholars, together and claimed that the term "Holocaust denial" is not actually defamatory. They did not -- and the court accepted their distinction. Penguin acknowledged a duty to distinguish genuine but controversial scholarship from the fraudulent peddling of racist lies -- and had no problem proving to the judge's satisfaction that Irving was, in fact, fraudulently peddling racist lies.

Chaos

21st February 2006, 11:33 AM

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts. :D

Yeah. Join the club.:(

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 11:50 AM

Yeah. Join the club.:(

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So :( back at ya!

:)

Chaos

21st February 2006, 01:32 PM

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So :( back at ya!

:)

I am not talking about this thread specifically.

Again and again, my posts are either ignored, or, when I see the reply (especially by those who, to put it politely, are pre-disposed to disagreeing with me) I think "well, now, you didn´t read what I wrote, did you?"

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 01:40 PM

In other news, Man to face charges for printing Koran on toilet paper (http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0210QuranTP10-ON.html)

BERLIN - A German businessman who printed the name of the Koran on toilet paper and offered the rolls for sale to mosques and media will face trial for disturbing the peace.

ZeeGerman

21st February 2006, 01:44 PM

Since this thread has grown to a considerable size already, I'd like to add some comments without referring to particular posts.
Firstly, the law that Irving broke originates in 1947 and has to be considered in that historical context. Back then, Germany and Austria went through a process called "Entnazifizierung" (Denazification) - enforcedy the allies - which went hand in hand with the successful attempt of the (western) allies to form stable, democratic societies in these two countries. In that situation, putting holocaust denial under the protection of free speech would simply have been counterproductive at best. Unlike today, when denying the holocaust is considered a quite wacko position by the vast majority, back then it would have found quite many believers.

Secondly, the issue of free speech is not so straight forward as one might think.
In 1994 there was a ruling of the German supreme court saying that holocaust denial is
„eine Tatsachenbehauptung, die nach ungezählten Augenzeugenberichten und Dokumenten, den Feststellungen der Gerichte in zahlreichen Strafverfahren und den Erkenntnissen der Geschichtswissenschaft erwiesen unwahr ist. Für sich genommen genießt eine Behauptung dieses Inhalts daher nicht den Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit.“

(" a statement which is, according to numerous accounts of eye wittnesses, court decisions and findings of historical science, evidently untrue and as such does not deserve the protection of free speech" - translation mine)

So, obvious lies or more generally statements that are obviously false do not fall under the protection of free speech over here.
This does not mean that I'm not allowed to proclaim that 1+1=3, it only means that this statement is not protected under the terms of free speech against constraints imposed by other laws which deal with e.g. libel, incitement etc.

The issue of libel is certainly a fuzzy one, but the idea that the victims and their decendants feel deeply offended by holocaust denial is not a hard one to grasp. So we have a conflict of interest at hand - free speech vs. respect to human dignity.
Who makes the decision for the particular case of holocaust denial?
Well, in Germany there is the "Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland" (Central Consistory of Jews in Germany) which is (inofficially) considered as THE authority regarding questions of the historical image of the holocaust, anti-semitism etc. Currently, I would say that any attempt to put holocaust denial under the protection of free speech would cause a tremendous outcry from this institution.
Would I join the outcry? Personally, no. Holocaust deniers are nut jobs and our society is in no danger to be infiltrated in any form by them, IMO. But I respect the position of the Consitory which is somewhat represenatative of the Jews in Germany. If they have a problem with holocaust denial, the law that puts it under punishment is fine with me.

Zee

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 01:58 PM

Speaking of Nuremberg...

Don't mention the war. In fact, don't imitate or make insulting reference to the war either, a German police official has warned English fans planning to attend the soccer World Cup in this summer.

"England fans should be aware that the Nazi salute and provocative behavior like goose-stepping in public will be punished," Thursday's Sun tabloid, Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper, quoted Gerhard Hauptmannl, the Nuremberg police chief, as saying.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1897456,00.html

Gerhard Hauptmann, police chief of Nuremberg, Germany, warning British soccer fans who might be tempted to try Basil Fawlty-style Hitler imitations or the Nazi salute at the upcoming World Cup match there:

"We are prepared to use our police powers to hold fans for up to two weeks without charge if we feel they are a threat to public safety and order. This used to be the city of the Nazi rallies but is now famous as the city of human rights."

There goes another irony meter!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/quicktakes/cst-nws-qt14.html

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 01:59 PM

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So :( back at ya! :)Here's my take. My grandmother was the only survivor out of her entire family to make it out of Auschwitz. She saw her father, mother, sisters, brothers, relatives and their friends die from starvation, forced labor, torture, and medical experiments. I remember as a child the tattoo on her arm and the pain in her face when she recited the Kaddish annually in memory her family and friends. She rarely talked about her experience but she did talk. That is not a "play for emotion" but a fact.

That said, the numbers I can google say there were 200,000 Jews, approximately 140,000 Poles, about 20,000 Gypsies, 10,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and more than 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities who didn't make it out of Auschwitz. IMO to have guys like Irving profitting via his books and lectures to other fellow white supremacists and neo-Nazis denying this ever happened means he must be a committed racist. That is if you believe - as Irving does - that the holocaust was an organized vast lie involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents. If Irving and his ilk are willing to do this then one must think they are capable of just about anything.

Therefore I feel democracies such as Austria, France and Germany have every right to pass laws to deligitimize folks like Irving who are not "questioning" history but rewriting it to deny an act so vile that even today it seems to stretch beyond human understanding.

ZeeGerman

21st February 2006, 02:18 PM

Speaking of Nuremberg...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1897456,00.html

There goes another irony meter!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/quicktakes/cst-nws-qt14.html
Hmm, when it comes to Germany, anything published in the Sun should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. They had not the slightest problem with inventing completely absurd ideas and putting it on the titlepage in the past.

That being said, the nazi salute is punishable in Germany for a long time now. That the Sun has finally figured that one out just now is truly a remarkable achievement of jounalism. It might be hard to grasp for non europeans but it does have a certain sociological and emotional justification. Before you indulge in more sarcasm from a moral high ground about our lack of freedom regarding free speech, do me the favor and explain to me the whole brouhaha about flag burning in the US, will you?

Zee

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 03:48 PM

Before you indulge in more sarcasm from a moral high ground about our lack of freedom regarding free speech, do me the favor and explain to me the whole brouhaha about flag burning in the US, will you?

Zee

Okay.

It pisses people off (including me, big-time), BUT...it's not illegal. And I'm glad.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 04:09 PM

I could change a few words and justify restricting a bunch of freedoms for the same reasons.Please try. The case you create will have to be comparable with this, which involves the Holocaust and its homeland.

Are you really suggesting that the Austrians are so ... what ... fragile? malliable? childlike? that a loon like this represents a threat? If Austria is that on the edge of some horror based on this man's words they have a very, very large problem.As I said, Austria is the land of Haidar and Kurt Waldheims's increased popularity after his SS past was publicised. It's the place where Irving goes to get his toes sucked by adoring followers. It's the country that spawned half of the names on the Wiesenthal list - a very disproportionate number. It's the land of Hitler's birth, where he first observed anti-semitism as a political tool in a democracy. You bet it's fragile. The problem wasn't solved in 1945, any more than the states-rights question was solved in 1865.

It's all very well looking down from a supernatural plane and postulating utopias where simply stated absolute principles can apply, but we proles have to live in the material world. It has its history and its easily-led, intellectually-lazy, incitable human race. (If humanity wasn't like that there'd be no need for JREF.) The concern in Austria is over something that has happened before. Within living memory. If Austrian democrats don't feel as secure as, say, 'Murricans in their democracy they have good reason. If they think that rehabilitation of Nazism - which is what Holocaust denial is most often about, and certainly is with Irving - cannot be treated as just another political project then they're entitled to treat it differently. If they thereby fall short of godliness, they're hardly alone.

drkitten

21st February 2006, 04:17 PM

It pisses people off (including me, big-time), BUT...it's not illegal. And I'm glad.

And a lot of people are not glad about it, and are trying very hard to change that, despite the fact that no one has ever been hurt or killed as a result of the flag-burning, or of any organization that the flag-burning represents.

On the other hand, Holocaust denial represents an organization that was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people within living memory.

How about the various anti-gang clothing statutes? Here's an example of one. (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/politics/13291720.htm) Notice that it was set aside, not because freedom of speech is absolute (it isn't, according to the decision) or because schools don't have the right to regulate attire (they do, according to the decision) but simply because the policy wasn't specific enough on what was and wasn't permitted.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 04:27 PM

And a lot of people are not glad about it, and are trying very hard to change that, despite the fact that no one has ever been hurt or killed as a result of the flag-burning, or of any organization that the flag-burning represents.

If you google the first quote in my sig, you will see it relates to the flag burning amendment. I've had that there ever since I heard it. :)

I have even written to my Senators about my opposition to the amendment, making sure to emphasize my 20 years of military service protecting and defending the Constitution and the flag.

I'm one of those guys who has to hold back tears when Old Glory passes by in a parade. For real.

Got a response from one Senator that I have mentioned here before was a masterpiece of doubletalk which made it impossible to determine where the Senator stood on the issue.

I think most of the flag burning hoopla is just hot air with no real impetus behind it.

The amendments guarantee or extend freedoms. The only one that ever took away a freedom was later repealed. The idiots behind the flag burning amendment need to freaking get a clue.

On the other hand, Holocaust denial represents an organization that was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people within living memory.

Not to be trite, but so?

Nobody hates freaking Nazis more than me. Just ask around. :)

But what does protecting free speech mean if you don't really mean it?

How about the various anti-gang clothing statutes?

Opposed.

drkitten

21st February 2006, 04:30 PM

But what does protecting free speech mean if you don't really mean it?

It means that not all speech is worth protecting. Something that the courts have no problem recognizing, which is why laws against slander, libel, and fraud still exist.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 04:36 PM

It means that not all speech is worth protecting. Something that the courts have no problem recognizing, which is why laws against slander, libel, and fraud still exist.

I guess I draw the line farther over than you do, is all. I think if someone wants to profess his ignorance, he should be free to do so.

Denying a holocaust denier the right to speak publicly isn't going to make the problem go away. It just removes him from public debate. And that is not a good thing. And it suggests his kung-fu is too powerful.

And I rather like the idea of a gang member wearing easily identifiable clothing rather than blending in.

Nazis have their own dress code and symbology aside from swastikas, too. If you know what to look for, they are also easily identifiable on our own streets.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 04:40 PM

Frankly, even a fine is a bad idea. Irving and those who follow him will wind up looking like buffoons in the end, and ultimately, they won't even look THAT good. In the end, it will serve them right.Everything will be fine. All's for the best. AAAAARRRRGH!

You repeat what was said about Hitler. (Surely Godwin's Law doesn't apply here. :) ) Your insousiance is rather maddening to someone who grew up in a city full of bomb-sites. The far-right is a threat in Europe, it's a European invention apart from anything else. Things will not necessarily turn out all right. Muslims might be their current target of choice rather than a Jewish-Communist conspiracy, but the underlying ideology remains the same : white, mono-cultural and statist. (By statist I mean, essentially, hive-society where the interests of the individual are superceded by the interests of the communal as determined by an elite.) It's very persuasive in post-Imperial Europe. If it gains power on the back of a confected Muslim threat, next they'll come for the blacks, then the Jews ("Shouldn't you people be in Israel?"), then people like me.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 04:46 PM

In Irving's case he was expressing an opinion that can be proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research.I know I'm skirting the borders of bad taste here, but I would so love it if someone tattooed his prisoner number on his arm. It could probably be arranged for a few thousand cigarettes and some heroin.

Luke T.

21st February 2006, 04:46 PM

zenith-nadir

21st February 2006, 04:58 PM

I know I'm skirting the borders of bad taste here, but I would so love it if someone tattooed his prisoner number on his arm. It could probably be arranged for a few thousand cigarettes and some heroin.Eventhough we agree to disagree 9 times out of 10 I would still buy you a pint if we met in person. :)

Guys like Irving scare me because if they are willing to deny the holocaust and in essence paint it as some sort of conspiracy theory involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents one must think they are capable of just about anything. Same goes for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 05:02 PM

I am not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for denial of any genocide other than the Holocaust.I'm not aware of any other genocide that Austria has participated in. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which expired in 1918, was not genocidal. Like all empires, it conquered people to rule and exploit them. Belgium doesn't have laws about denying their genocidal Congo history, you're more likely to get harrassed for publicising it.

Belgians. Hard to define. Harder to like.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 05:11 PM

Same goes for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.On this point we can diverge, to the relief of us both. Ahmadinajaket is an ignorant rube. Irving isn't. Their motivations are also entirely different. Ahmadinejad is typical of Irving's target audience, not of Irving's gang.

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 05:45 PM

Since the anti-speech legislation was passed, has the nazi problem grown or shrunk?Have all other variables remained the same? I think not. Austria is no more a laboratory than Europe is. Has Austrian democracy collapsed because of the anti-speech, and thus anti-utopian-democracy, legislation? Was it the thin end of the wedge? No. But it's easy to answer a question I pose myself.

The Austrian Problem isn't going to go away all of a sudden. Austria isn't just "a European country", any more than any European country is. It's younger than Italy or Germany, and was born by reduction rather than expansion. It positively oozes resentment, which is a cultural corrosive. It's Catholic, which can't be said of Italy or Germany. I could go on (and have been known to).

When I suggest, as I have for some decades now, that a Jewish homeland established in Austria after 1945 was a good idea I am not being frivolous. Western Jews would have felt at home there, the Middle East wouldn't have been stirred-up, and the Austrian Problem would have been solved. "You wanna be German so much, Rule 8 off to Germany."

CapelDodger

21st February 2006, 06:19 PM

He is also, by claiming the Holocaust was invented, libelling pretty much every jew alive after 1945 because he (implicitly or explicitly) claims they invented the Holocaust and extorted money for it from Germany, among other things.
This is indeed the way that Holocaust denial perpetuates the Jewish Control Of Everything Except My Website meme. The Nazi thesis was that Jews engineered the Great War because they already controlled Britain, France and the US, and Austro-Germany was the last bulwark against total Jewish world domination. Russia fell to the Jewish-Communist conspiracy. And Austro-Germany lost - the final consummation of the Jewish Hegemonist Plot.

Except that, somehow, Austro-Germany was going to reverse the process - this was the Hitlerian argument. The all-powerful World Occupational Government that was established by Germany's defeat in 1918 was unable to silence Hitler, a beer-hall ranter. What happened? Austro-Germany got screwed again. Big-time. Unconditional surrender. No "stab-in the back" excuse. Complete and utter subjugation by the Jewish-Communist conspirators. By Irving's reasoning, there is no way that Irving would live to say what he says. There's even less way he'd even get published. A power that could invent the Holocaust would have made him worm-food long ago.

To these people, Jewish World Hegemony is always just about to happen, and only they can stop it. Again.

JamesDillon

21st February 2006, 06:34 PM

I see I'm late to this party; I just found out about this a few minutes ago. I started a thread on the subject before noticing this one; hopefully no one will reply to the thread I started. For the sake of avoiding that temptation, here's my opinion on the matter:

Irving may well be a mendacious, bigoted hatemonger, though Shermer seems to have a modicum of intellectual respect for him, and to feel a degree of pity for his wasted potential. It may even be the case that pro-Nazi speech causes a great deal of emotional harm to the survivors of the Holocaust and to all Europeans who wish to put that ugly chapter of human history behind them. This is all beside the point. My understanding is that many EU nations impose criminal sanctions on Holocaust denial; how does one reconcile this with their apparent indignation at the Muslim response to the Danish cartoon incident? Do they value the freedom of speech only when other people's sacred cows are its targets? Granted, Austria is only imprisoning Irving, not calling for his death. Still, this seems only a matter of degree to me; the idea that the state is justified in criminalizing unpopular or offensive speech is one I find very disturbing, particularly in light of recent events.

RandFan

21st February 2006, 06:42 PM

Umm, as far as I know there is no doubt that Irving falsified historical documents.Then jail him, fine him or whatever for forging historical documents so long as he is is not being jailed for denying the Holocaust. We keep agreeing on this subject why do you keep arguing it?

RandFan

21st February 2006, 06:43 PM

I like that idea.

I'll see what I can track down. I'm taking a break though, real life interferes.Ignore previous post.

Roadtoad

21st February 2006, 08:16 PM

Everything will be fine. All's for the best. AAAAARRRRGH!

You repeat what was said about Hitler. (Surely Godwin's Law doesn't apply here. :) ) Your insousiance is rather maddening to someone who grew up in a city full of bomb-sites. The far-right is a threat in Europe, it's a European invention apart from anything else. Things will not necessarily turn out all right. Muslims might be their current target of choice rather than a Jewish-Communist conspiracy, but the underlying ideology remains the same : white, mono-cultural and statist. (By statist I mean, essentially, hive-society where the interests of the individual are superceded by the interests of the communal as determined by an elite.) It's very persuasive in post-Imperial Europe. If it gains power on the back of a confected Muslim threat, next they'll come for the blacks, then the Jews ("Shouldn't you people be in Israel?"), then people like me.

CD, I'm sorry, but there's a serious difference between a coward like Irving, who's been discredited time and again, and what you're talking about.

I agree, the far right is a threat, and not just in Europe. And the same scenario you're seeing right now is being played out here in the States, with some very serious consequences facing us. (Keep in mind, we've still got some serious military hardware stashed around the nation.)

The way you fight Irving is with FACTS. You hit them with facts, you hit them again with facts, and once you've done that, you hit them with MORE facts. We have to get back in our schools to teaching facts about history, and how to understand how those facts relate to our society today, rather than trying to indoctrinate our kids. You continue to stick to reliable information, rather than try to rewrite history as some have been trying to do since the days of Thomas Dewey.

You're scared? Hell, I KNOW what the far right is capable of. Scares me senseless. But don't think muzzling them is the solution. Bust 'em on what they do, on their acts of violence against the innocent, on their plans to incite violence. Playing on thought crimes makes us no better than them.

RandFan

21st February 2006, 10:04 PM

CD, I'm sorry, but there's a serious difference between a coward like Irving, who's been discredited time and again, and what you're talking about.

I agree, the far right is a threat, and not just in Europe. And the same scenario you're seeing right now is being played out here in the States, with some very serious consequences facing us. (Keep in mind, we've still got some serious military hardware stashed around the nation.)

The way you fight Irving is with FACTS. You hit them with facts, you hit them again with facts, and once you've done that, you hit them with MORE facts. We have to get back in our schools to teaching facts about history, and how to understand how those facts relate to our society today, rather than trying to indoctrinate our kids. You continue to stick to reliable information, rather than try to rewrite history as some have been trying to do since the days of Thomas Dewey.

You're scared? Hell, I KNOW what the far right is capable of. Scares me senseless. But don't think muzzling them is the solution. Bust 'em on what they do, on their acts of violence against the innocent, on their plans to incite violence. Playing on thought crimes makes us no better than them. Good post.

Kaylee

21st February 2006, 10:49 PM

Response to post #175 deleted because I just read post #176. :)

Skeptic

21st February 2006, 11:32 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial;_ylt=AieUYnUNXLWKnn7kiXM6 3fus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

On the one hand, you reap what you sow...and he's not unlike ID proponents, facts be damned, political agenda full-speed ahead.

On the other hand, I wonder if the people now standing up for the rights of the Danish press to publish the infamous cartoon, will also stand up for Irving's right to be a crack-pot.

Absolutely.

Irving is a grade-A A-hole, a loon, an antisemite and a racist.

But criminalizing speech, and going to jail for saying disgusting things (apart from "let's go kill Mr. X!" or other obvious rare exceptions that are not only disgusting but an incitement to violence) is preposterous.

It makes Austria looks as fascist as him, if not more so. The same, incidentally, with "religious hatered" laws, which make it illegal, not to do anything against people of another religions or creed--the usual laws against assault, murder, etc., take care of that--but to say anything impolite.

Besides, first, this will only make him a martyr, and, second and far more important, today him, tomorrow, all of us. If denying the holocaust is a crime today, saying that it did happen could be a crime tomorrow.

I say he should be freed and the Austrian government should rescind this law and apologize to him for jailing him.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 01:42 AM

It's Catholic, which can't be said of Italy or Germany.

Sorry for the derail. Is Italy not a Catholic country? I am pretty rubbish at the whole religion thing, but if asked to name a Catholic country in Europe I would probably have gone for Italy.

Skeptic

22nd February 2006, 04:08 AM

1. Holocaust-deniers - by my definition, those who deny that the Holocaust took place. And you're right, they are probably not curious inquisitors, but more likely racist, or just misinformed.

2. Those who question certain aspects of the history of the Holocaust - these I clearly said were not Holocaust-deniers (again, by my definition), but curious inquisitors. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that there are details that have not been fully explained or explored, and can't be because the very act of asking the questions is considered racist and, apparently, even illegal.

I don't think holocaust denial should be illegal, but I disagree that there are these two groups of people. The "Curious Inquisitors" are, for the most part, holocaust denier which is it perfectly justifiable to "lump together" with holocaust deniers.

This is not to say the holocaust cannot be questioned. In fact, historials, scholars, and laymen ask questions about the holocaust all the time and sometimes do change their mind when the evidence doesn't back up the claims. If anything, there are more historians studying the holocaust in particular and WWII Germany than there are historians studying any other field.

Not only do they ask questions about the holocaust, they do it all the time and nobody thinks they are "holocaust deniers". For example, it is by now more or less established that--contrary to what some of us learned in school--there was no making of bodies of victims into soap, and Hitler probably did not have the holocaust planned out in advance (the decision for total genocide was made, many historians say, only in 1941/2 when the Russian war removed all trace of restraint).

The two groups you talk about, however, are essentially the same: one group says openly that the holocaust never happened, the others feign doubt about it as a tactical way to raise doubts about it and hide behind the "I'm only asking" mask when challanged. While it is hard to give a theoretical, logical explication of what exactly the difference is between an actual scholar of the holocaust and a pretend "doubter" who is really a denier, the difference is clear and very obvious in practice.

Again: this is NOT saying that anybody should be silenced, let alone put in jail, for holocaust denial or questioning, let alone research. It's just making clear what the real two groups are: it's real scholars and deniers. The deniers / "curious inquisitor" distinction is spurious.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 04:17 AM

I don't think holocaust denial should be illegal...Should inciting white supremicists in the "south" with hateful and openly racist anti-black propoganda - that has been repeatedly discredited - be legal or illegal?

Skeptic

22nd February 2006, 04:28 AM

Should inciting white supremicists in the "south" with hateful and openly racist anti-black propoganda - that has been repeatedly discredited - be legal or illegal?

Legal. OF COURSE it should be legal. And in fact it is, so far as I know.

What is illegal is to burn crosses on someone's lawn or to call for a lynching or other violence--and indeed it is illegal, as credible calls for violence are not protected under "freedom of speech".

But Irving, as disgusting and pathetic and disturbed as he is, so far as I know had never advocated violence against anybody. If nothing else, it would ruin what's left of his own self-image as an "impartial researcher".

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 04:34 AM

Legal. OF COURSE it should be legal. And in fact it is, so far as I know.

What is illegal is to burn crosses on someone's lawn or to call for a lynching or other violence--and indeed it is illegal, as credible calls for violence are not protected under "freedom of speech".

But Irving, as disgusting and pathetic and disturbed as he is, so far as I know had never advocated violence against anybody. If nothing else, it would ruin what's left of his own self-image as an "impartial researcher".See this is the part I feel many JREFers are missing.

To have guys like Irving running around rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement. It validates Nazi apologist, neo-Nazi revivalist and white supremacist ideology and gives them moral encouragement to follow their "dreams"...such as burning crosses, beating up minorities, spraying swastikas on synagogues or knocking over jewish tombstones.

As the famous poem goes:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 04:38 AM

See this is the part I feel many JREFers are missing.

To have guys like Irving running around rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement.

I don't think anyone would have a problem if he had been tried and convicted on the basis of incitement.

But he wasn't, he was tried and convicted for denying the holocaust.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 04:48 AM

But he wasn't, he was tried and convicted for denying the holocaust.So let's do the math.

Why does Austria have laws against denying the holocaust? B-e-c-a-u-s-e rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Austrian Nazi apologists, Austrian neo-Nazi revivalists and Austrian white supremacists is in itself a form of incitement. Irving is validating the racism of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists and white supremacists by saying jews must have perpetrated the world's greatest hoax - the holocaust - to make nazis look bad.

As I said before if there are people like Irving out there who make a profit expressing pro-nazi opinions which can be proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research to other like-minded pro-nazi folks then these people are capable of just about anything.

[edited to add]

IMO I don't think he should go to jail, but I do think he definitely should be made a public spectacle of to show that the civilized world will not tolerate rehabilitating Nazism.

Skeptic

22nd February 2006, 04:53 AM

As I said before if there are people like Irving out there who express an pro-nazi opinion that can be proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research to other like-minded folks then these people are capable of just about anything.

Perhaps they are; but "you are capable of anything" is a poor reason to put someone in jail. You yourself--just like all of us, of course, I don't mean only you--are quite capable of murder, are you not? You do not have any guarantee from anybody that you will never hate someone so much you'll kill them. Yet nobody would or should put you in jail for that.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 04:57 AM

So let's do the math.

Why does Austria have laws against denying the holocaust?

Possibly, because they would not be able to convict under the laws about incitement? If they could, why the need for a separate law?

If you want to convict someone for incitement, I believe you should be required to prove incitement.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 05:00 AM

IMO I don't think he should go to jail, but I do think he definitely should be made a public spectacle of to show that the civilized world will not tolerate rehabilitating Nazism.

I have no problem with him being made a public spectacle of. I think the libel case did an absolutely magnificent job of that (and had the added benefit of causing him enormous financial cost).

Dcdrac

22nd February 2006, 05:01 AM

While part of me is happy that the arrogant old liar has got his comeuppance again, and once again brought on by himself, the other side of me says there is a danger the far right nutcases will see him as a martyer.

But as he has now denied his age old central lie to save his skin, maybe they will see him as the fraud he his.

David Swidler

22nd February 2006, 05:16 AM

Oh, don't w wish. More likely his supporters and followers will chalk it up to Jewish manipulation forcing him to do so, further "proof" of their claims.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 05:18 AM

Perhaps they are; but "you are capable of anything" is a poor reason to put someone in jail. You yourself--just like all of us, of course, I don't mean only you--are quite capable of murder, are you not? You do not have any guarantee from anybody that you will never hate someone so much you'll kill them. Yet nobody would or should put you in jail for that.

Possibly, because they would not be able to convict under the laws about incitement? If they could, why the need for a separate law? If you want to convict someone for incitement, I believe you should be required to prove incitement.

Here is my opinion and I am not speaking for Austria.

It is well known that there are Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists and white supremacists in Europe and around the world. These people hate...and when I say hate, I mean hate jews. Go read the message board at "Stormfront" sometime if you do not believe me.

That said, holocaust denial is one of the most important vehicles for contemporary anti-Semitism. Those who deny the Holocaust believe that the Jews fabricated a "big lie" in order to gain sympathy and these same folks spend their waking hours rehabilitating and glorifying fascism and the Third Reich.

To allow guys like Irving running around the globe selling pro-nazi books and giving holocaust denial lectures - for profit - to other Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists and white supremacists is a danger to other human beings. That is my take on the subject.

Everyone should have the right to say what they want but not everything they say should be protected under the law, especially in cases of hate literature and people who make a profit expressing pro-nazi opinions.

Ian Osborne

22nd February 2006, 05:19 AM

I have no problem with him being made a public spectacle of. I think the libel case did an absolutely magnificent job of that (and had the added benefit of causing him enormous financial cost).

Precisely. All this jail sentence has done is turned an ineffectual, discredited old has-been into a martyr. I wonder how many people - ordinary people, not hardened holocaust deniers - have rushed out and bought his books to see what it is Austria is so afraid of?

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 05:22 AM

...what it is Austria is so afraid of?Nazi revivalists....and with good reason - see: WW2. ;)

Oh, don't w wish. More likely his supporters and followers will chalk it up to Jewish manipulation forcing him to do so, further "proof" of their claims.Here is the David Irving Thread (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272200&page=3) at Stormfront. Educate yourselves JREFers.

Flo

22nd February 2006, 05:50 AM

As I said, Austria is the land of Haidar and Kurt Waldheims's increased popularity after his SS past was publicised. It's the place where Irving goes to get his toes sucked by adoring followers. It's the country that spawned half of the names on the Wiesenthal list - a very disproportionate number. It's the land of Hitler's birth, where he first observed anti-semitism as a political tool in a democracy. You bet it's fragile. The problem wasn't solved in 1945, any more than the states-rights question was solved in 1865.

It's all very well looking down from a supernatural plane and postulating utopias where simply stated absolute principles can apply, but we proles have to live in the material world. It has its history and its easily-led, intellectually-lazy, incitable human race. (If humanity wasn't like that there'd be no need for JREF.) The concern in Austria is over something that has happened before. Within living memory. If Austrian democrats don't feel as secure as, say, 'Murricans in their democracy they have good reason. If they think that rehabilitation of Nazism - which is what Holocaust denial is most often about, and certainly is with Irving - cannot be treated as just another political project then they're entitled to treat it differently. If they thereby fall short of godliness, they're hardly alone.

Excellent post.

Flo

22nd February 2006, 05:52 AM

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 05:59 AM

But he wasn't, he was tried and convicted for denying the holocaust.

And what, exactly, are the legal elements of "denying the Holocaust" under Austrian law?

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 06:25 AM

And what, exactly, are the legal elements of "denying the Holocaust" under Austrian law?

I don't know, however given that the reports are talking about him being convicted for "denying the holocaust", that wikipedia refers to him pleading guilty to a charge of "denying the holocaust", the European press (see below) seem to think that he has been convicted of "denying the holocaust", I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption that all that is required is that he denies that the holocaust took place.

If you have further information, please let me have it. I would genuinely like to know and as mentioned earlier tried to google for it (in the context of whether it covered all denial of genocide or only denial of the Holocaust) but couldn't find anything.

Press comments on the nature of the offence:

"Holocaust denial - not, of course, incitement to or glorification of genocide - must stop being a crime in Europe. " El Mundo, Spain. Suggests that incitement is NOT necessary to be convicted for Holocaust denial.

"We have deep misgivings about the classification of Holocaust denial as a prosecutable offence." Independent, UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4735496.stm

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 06:37 AM

I don't know, however given that the reports are talking about him being convicted for "denying the holocaust", that wikipedia refers to him pleading guilty to a charge of "denying the holocaust", the European press (see below) seem to think that he has been convicted of "denying the holocaust", I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption that all that is required is that he denies that the holocaust took place.

You, um, didn't read the reports of the Irving trial to which I repeatedly referred you, did you?

Chaos

22nd February 2006, 07:13 AM

Here is my opinion and I am not speaking for Austria.

It is well known that there are Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists and white supremacists in Europe and around the world. These people hate...and when I say hate, I mean hate jews. Go read the message board at "Stormfront" sometime if you do not believe me.

That said, holocaust denial is one of the most important vehicles for contemporary anti-Semitism. Those who deny the Holocaust believe that the Jews fabricated a "big lie" in order to gain sympathy and these same folks spend their waking hours rehabilitating and glorifying fascism and the Third Reich.

To allow guys like Irving running around the globe selling pro-nazi books and giving holocaust denial lectures - for profit - to other Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists and white supremacists is a danger to other human beings. That is my take on the subject.

Everyone should have the right to say what they want but not everything they say should be protected under the law, especially in cases of hate literature and people who make a profit expressing pro-nazi opinions.

Pretty much, yes.

Look at it this way: why did the Nazis come to power the first time?

They were not just democratically elected (although they did gain quite a share of the votes). It was not just the EVIL leftists´ fault. It was because (and this is true for the Italian fascists, too), in the eyes of the conservatives, they looked more appealing than the communists. The conservatives thought that they´d rather try their luck with the rabble-rouser Hitler, who would at worst have a few commies beat up, than with the EVIL communists who would would put an end to their personal prosperity and be generally the anti-thesis of everything they believed in.

Now ask yourself: what would it take for the Nazis to come back to power and repeat their crimes - and this time, kill ALL the jews?

Simple: first and foremost, they have to get that stain called "Holocaust" out of their spotless white vests. If they can convince the public that the Holocaust didn´t happen, or delete it from public memory outright, they can blame WW2 on the international jewish-communist conspiracy, and be the same "better than the EVIL communists/muslims/liberals/whatever" party that will look SO appealing to right-wingers.

Discrediting the reality of the Holocaust is the conditio sine qua non for a Nazi resurgence. And Germany and Austria, above all other countries, have a responsibility for preventing THAT from ever happening again.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 07:23 AM

You, um, didn't read the reports of the Irving trial to which I repeatedly referred you, did you?

I, um, did.

You made several specific points about the Penguin trial and the agreed standard of proof required for the term "holocaust denier" to be applied to Irving in that context. I assumed that the definition would not be relevant in respect of a criminal as opposed to civil case under a completely different legal jurisdiction. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I apologise.

You also said that "in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history". What you did not state is whether or not you are familiar with Austrian jurisdiction. So I have no way of knowing if that statement is meant to apply to Austria or not.

I have learnt a lot from your posts so far and would be happy to learn more.

It may be just sloppy reporting, but from the press coverage the key fact seems to be that he denied there were gas chambers at Auschwitz:

"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. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

"He had pleaded guilty to the charges, which were based on a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he disputed the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710508.stm

The reports suggest that such denial is sufficient to constitute the offence of "holocaust denial" - if that is not the case and an ulterior motive behind the denial was required to secure a conviction I would be far more relaxed about the existence of the laws.

Ian Osborne

22nd February 2006, 07:50 AM

Discrediting the reality of the Holocaust is the conditio sine qua non for a Nazi resurgence. And Germany and Austria, above all other countries, have a responsibility for preventing THAT from ever happening again.

Which is precisely why he must be discredited and humiliated by the facts, not thrown into the nick and silenced, turning him into a cause celebre for fascists and raising questions about what 'they' have to hide.

RandFan

22nd February 2006, 07:59 AM

As the famous poem goes:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin NiemöllerSo you have your answer. Yes, by all means, please, speak out. THAT is the solution. The answer to bad speech is good speech. The answer is not the thought police. Don't criminalize speech.

Chaos

22nd February 2006, 08:01 AM

Which is precisely why he must be discredited and humiliated by the facts, not thrown into the nick and silenced, turning him into a cause celebre for fascists and raising questions about what 'they' have to hide.

Holocaust denial has been discredited and humiliated by the facts again and again and *********** again. Has it helped? No.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 08:03 AM

Holocaust denial has been discredited and humiliated by the facts again and again and *********** again. Has it helped? No.

And thought police does?

Mark

22nd February 2006, 08:03 AM

Holocaust denial has been discredited and humiliated by the facts again and again and *********** again. Has it helped? No.

That means the idiot should be jailed? I don't think so.

I mean if we are going to jail someone for playing loose with the facts, then surely we should arrest the pres...

Nah...that one's too easy. ;)

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 08:04 AM

Don't criminalize speech.Ok cool. I am going to make my "RandFan is illegitimate", "Randfan never happened" and "Death to RandFan" posters for distribution right now.

;) :p

Ian Osborne

22nd February 2006, 08:07 AM

Holocaust denial has been discredited and humiliated by the facts again and again and *********** again. Has it helped? No.

Yes it has. That's why it's only believed by a handful of morons. Compare this to, say, Intelligent Design, which most evolutionary scientists consider beneath refutation. Consequently...

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 08:10 AM

Ok cool. I am going to make my "RandFan is illegitimate", "Randfan never happened" and "Death to RandFan" posters for distribution right now.

;) :p

Depending on where Randfan is, the first might not even be enough to libel him. Conservatives (which would have a small c were it not at the start of a sentence to denote "those with conservative attitudes" as opposed to members of the Conservative party) in the UK have been wailing and gnashing teeth over the fact that 40% of births are now "out of wedlock". On current trends it will soon be a majority. Do we then start to insult people by pointing out that their parents were married? ;-)

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 08:33 AM

I, um, did.

You made several specific points about the Penguin trial and the agreed standard of proof required for the term "holocaust denier" to be applied to Irving in that context. I assumed that the definition would not be relevant in respect of a criminal as opposed to civil case under a completely different legal jurisdiction. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I apologise.

You also said that "in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history". What you did not state is whether or not you are familiar with Austrian jurisdiction. So I have no way of knowing if that statement is meant to apply to Austria or not.

Unfortunately, my German is very poor and not up to the standard necessary to fight through Austrian legalese. But the reportage standards of newspapers are not much better, precisely because they have to use simple words that everyone understands.

The other key thing to consider is that the legal environment in Austria (and in Europe in general) tends to be much different from the Anglo-American common-law system. In general, under common law, the role of the judge is not to arrive at the truth himself, but to evaluate arguments presented by lawyers. Judges in the continental system take a much more direct role, because their job is to establish truth, almost in an inquisitorial fashion.

A key aspect of Anglo-American criminal law (and I believe, but have no citations to hand, in German and Austrian law as well) is the doctrine of mens rea (formally, 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea '- 'An act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy') The prosecution, in general, must prove both the guilty act (that Irving made the speech) as well as the guilty state of mind (that Irving did so with the intention (broadly defined) of minimizing the Holocaust).

It may be just sloppy reporting, but from the press coverage the key fact seems to be that he denied there were gas chambers at Auschwitz:

"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. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

Well, yeah, of course. That's the actus reus, the guilty act. It's arguably the most important part of any criminal prosection, to prove that the event actually occurred.

But the mental element is equally necessary, but much more boring and therefore is almost never mentioned in newsreports, so it's not surprising that it got omitted here. Your quotes are from the BBC, so I'll use the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4081480.stm):

A convicted burglar, who raided the home of a Shropshire pensioner while on the run from prison, has been jailed for five years.

Isaac John Price, 42, originally from Stoke-on-Trent, was found guilty of burgling the home of Alwynne Tommey, 72, at Clee Hill in December 2003.

No mention of the mental element, despite the fact that it's a necessary part of any criminal prosecution for burglary under UK law. It's simply so omnipresent that no one talks about it.

Chaos

22nd February 2006, 08:50 AM

I wonder what would happen if a poll was made about whether or not people in the US think the Holocaust really happened. What would come to light?
Is it really just a "handful of morons" who believe the Holocaust deniers? I don´t think so. A considerable number of full-time Holocaust denial specialists can live quite well off poisoning the minds of others. Hardly the sign of a "handful of morons".

And those who equate the anti-denial legislation with "thought police" can, with all due respect, go **** themselves. What is illegal here is not thinking anything. It is the deliberate, malicious defamation of an entire ethnic group, along with the deliberate, malicious falsification of historical data, with the goal of re-instating the most abominable tyranny that ever existed.
Let me put it this way: if I claim that, for example, Cleon is a child molester, and if I publish a book containing falsified, but somewhat convincing details about how Cleon molests children, and give speeches about how we shouldn´t tolerate Cleon claiming he is innocent - would you then say this is still protected by freedom of speech?

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 09:00 AM

would you then say this is still protected by freedom of speech?

I would certainly not be clear on what crime you had committed. You could of course be sued for defamation.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:01 AM

What is illegal here is not thinking anything. It is the deliberate, malicious defamation of an entire ethnic group, along with the deliberate, malicious falsification of historical data, with the goal of re-instating the most abominable tyranny that ever existed.Exactly.

Let me put it this way: if I claim that, for example, Cleon is a child molester, and if I publish a book containing falsified, but somewhat convincing details about how Cleon molests children, and give speeches about how we shouldn´t tolerate Cleon claiming he is innocent - would you then say this is still protected by freedom of speech?The problem is alot of the people who are running the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole are not personally effected by neo-nazis and white supremacists. Their tune would change drastically if the neo-nazis and white supremacist movements wanted their heads on a spike. ;)

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 09:04 AM

The problem is alot of the people who are running the "freedom of speech" flag up the pole are not personally effected by neo-nazis and white supremacists. Their tune would change drastically if the neo-nazis and white supremacist movements wanted their heads on a spike. ;)

Evidence?

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:06 AM

Evidence?This thread. Cries of fascism!, censorship!, thought police!... by people who have never directly been at the receiving end of concentration camps, neo-nazis and white supremacists.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 09:09 AM

This thread. Cries of fascism!, censorship!, thought police!... by people who have never directly been at the receiving end of concentration camps, neo-nazis and white supremacists.

And this supports your claim that they would change their position if they had been how exactly?

Ian Osborne

22nd February 2006, 09:11 AM

by people who have never directly been at the receiving end of concentration camps, neo-nazis and white supremacists.

As you yourself quoted...

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Maybe we should add, 'Then they came for the Holocaust deniers, and I did not speak out because I'm not a Holocaust denier...

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:12 AM

And this supports your claim that they would change their position if they had been how exactly?Here is a clumsy analogy.

If your parents were killed by a drunk driver would you support drunk drivers' right to drive drunk or would you support laws against drunk driving?

Ian Osborne

22nd February 2006, 09:13 AM

Here is a clumsy analogy.

If your parents were killed by a drunk driver would you support drunk drivers right to drive drunk or would you support laws against drunk driving?

It's a very clumsy analogy. Drink-driving is an action, not a belief.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 09:15 AM

Drink-driving is an action, not a belief.

Holocaust denial is also an action, not a belief.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:16 AM

It's a very clumsy analogy. Drink-driving is an action, not a belief.I noticed you didn't answer the question either. :p

But my rebuttal is denying the holocaust by giving lectures and selling books for profit - as Irving does - is an action too. ;)

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 09:17 AM

Here is a clumsy analogy.

If your parents were killed by a drunk driver would you support drunk drivers' right to drive drunk or would you support laws against drunk driving?

I support laws against drunk driving because I believe it to be wrong. My parents have not been killed by a drunk driver.

Maybe you base all of your beliefs on direct personal experiences. I try (and often fail) to stick to consistent principles.

Kaylee

22nd February 2006, 09:20 AM

A key aspect of Anglo-American criminal law (and I believe, but have no citations to hand, in German and Austrian law as well) is the doctrine of mens rea (formally, 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea '- 'An act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy') The prosecution, in general, must prove both the guilty act (that Irving made the speech) as well as the guilty state of mind (that Irving did so with the intention (broadly defined) of minimizing the Holocaust).

I added the emphasis.

Although I am not a lawyer I think this is why the fact that David Irving has been proved to falsify historical documents has been both part of the Austrian's govt case against him and also a part of the Lipstadt and Penguin Books defense against his libel suit in England.

{skip}

Also I would expect the court to take into account whether Irving accidently misinterpreted some data or if he went out of his way to create false data. The Austrian state prosecutor did refer to his falsification of data in the trial per this article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article346727.ece

The state prosecutor, Michael Klackl, remained unimpressed. He called Irving a "dangerous falsifier of history" and a man who often played the role of a repentant sinner.

and

Also, in reference to Irving's book, Hitler's War:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
Irving, surmised Professor Evans, had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics.

Evans, a history professor at Cambridge, was hired by Lipstadt and Penguin Books to help them in their defense against Irving's libel suit in 2000.

Irving's deliberate falsification of data proves his state of mind and was an integral part of the Austrian's govt. case against him.

In regard to Cleon's post #146:

But again, forging historical documents is NOT what he's being imprisoned for. Or even *accused* of, for that matter.

This is why I had said in some of my earlier posts that Irving's denial of the Holocaust could not be considered in a vacuum and that falsifying evidence is a tool that many Holocaust deniers use. But it's nice to have the legal term in Latin. ;) Thanks drkitten!

However, because I know Randfan will bring it up if I don't, again I agree that falsifying historical documents with an intent to deceive should be a criminal and not just a civil crime. *

For most Holocaust deniers that would probably be enough to stop them from spreading their lies and attempts to raise strife. However, if 10 European countries believe that Holocaust denial speech is an incitement to violence and should be limited from free speech -- considering Europe's history I can see their point.

*Note: It may be. I could not find anything on this in any search engine.

ETA: change last sentence.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:27 AM

I support laws against drunk driving because I believe it to be wrong. My parents have not been killed by a drunk driver.I support laws against folks like Irving making a living off holocaust denial because of A) personal family experience, B) that holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, C) that holocaust denial can been proven 100% false by countless witness statements, documents, numerous court rulings, photographs, testimony of nazis, victims and bystanders, train schedules, deportation lists, diagrams of the camps, physical remains, aerial surveillance and extensive historical research and D) that the act of denying the Holocaust diminishes not just Jews but the experiences of all people who suffered in the Nazi death camps.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 09:31 AM

In regard to Cleon's post #146:

This is why I had said in some of my earlier posts that Irving's denial of the Holocaust could not be considered in a vacuum and that falsifying evidence is a tool that many Holocaust deniers use. But it's nice to have the legal term in Latin. ;) Thanks drkitten!

...Which is still dodging the main issue, which is that he's being imprisoned not for falsifying documents, but for thought crime.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 09:33 AM

...Which is still dodging the main issue, which is that he's being imprisoned not for falsifying documents, but for thought crime.

Do you think that if you say this often enough, it will become true?

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 09:35 AM

Do you think that if you say this often enough, it will become true?

Wow...You really don't think that's the case?

The twists and turns people will make to avoid admitting this guy's being imprisoned for saying the wrong thing is truly amazing.

Jaggy Bunnet

22nd February 2006, 09:42 AM

.

Sorry, I deleted the bits that were irelevant to you provding evidence for your claim about how other people would abandon their principles if they were personally threatened.

Seems like there is nothing left.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2006, 09:43 AM

...Which is still dodging the main issue, which is that he's being imprisoned not for falsifying documents, but for thought crime."Thought crime"...what a nice spin. Irving was a serial "falsifier of history" and an icon for neo-Nazis and revisionist historians worldwide.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland. Irving broke the law in Austria which is not based upon George Orwell's book.

Kaylee

22nd February 2006, 09:44 AM

The prosecution, in general, must prove both the guilty act (that Irving made the speech) as well as the guilty state of mind (that Irving did so with the intention

Irving deliberately creating false historical documents proves guilty state of mind. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 09:50 AM

Sorry, I deleted the bits that were irelevant to you provding evidence for your claim about how other people would abandon their principles if they were personally threatened.

Seems like there is nothing left.

Odd, considering that as a left-leaning Jew, I'd be lucky if I even made it as far as the camps.

I had family members go through--many who didn't make it--Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Dachau. One cousin of mine fought in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

If ZN is seriously trying to imply that we need some sort of Jewish credentials before we're allowed to speak out in favor of freedom of speech, he's outdoing himself in the "hideously offensive stupidity" department.

Chaos

22nd February 2006, 10:01 AM

I would certainly not be clear on what crime you had committed. You could of course be sued for defamation.

I was under the impression that falsely accusing someone of committing a crime is in itself a criminal act.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 10:27 AM

The twists and turns people will make to avoid admitting this guy's being imprisoned for saying the wrong thing is truly amazing.

"Saying the wrong thing," by definition, is an action, not a thought.

He's not being imprisioned for a thoughtcrime.

And "saying the wrong thing" can easily get you imprisoned --- case in point, slander, libel, conspiracy, incitement, solicitation, fraud, &c....

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:28 AM

"Saying the wrong thing," by definition, is an action, not a thought.

He's not being imprisioned for a thoughtcrime.

And "saying the wrong thing" can easily get you imprisoned --- case in point, slander, libel, conspiracy, incitement, solicitation, fraud, &c....

However, once again, you seem to miss that this is NOT what happened.

In this case "saying the wrong thing" means "expressing the wrong opinion."

So yes, it's a thoughtcrime.

Kaylee

22nd February 2006, 10:36 AM

However, once again, you seem to miss that this is NOT what happened.

In this case "saying the wrong thing" means "expressing the wrong opinion."

So yes, it's a thoughtcrime.
No. If it was just a matter of having the "wrong opinion" than he wouldn't have falsified documentation.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:38 AM

No. If it was just a matter of having the "wrong opinion" than he wouldn't have falsified documentation.
And if it were a matter of falsified documentation, he would've been arrested for that.

He wasn't.

He was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust--i.e., having the wrong opinion.

You can keep harping on the "falsified documentation" angle if you like, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't work.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 10:40 AM

In this case "saying the wrong thing" means "expressing the wrong opinion."

And expressing the wrong opinion is an act, not a thought.

And you can be jailed routinely for expressing the wrong opinion, if your opinion happens to be libelous, slanderous, conspiratorial, fraudulent, &c.

Saying "my snake oil cures cancer" just expressing an opinion -- but if I've falsified the evidence in support of that opinion, then it's fraud, and I can go to jail for it.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:40 AM

And expressing the wrong opinion is an act, not a thought.

And you can be jailed routinely for expressing the wrong opinion, if your opinion happens to be libelous, slanderous, conspiratorial, fraudulent, &c.

Saying "my snake oil cures cancer" just expressing an opinion -- but if I've falsified the evidence in support of that opinion, then it's fraud, and I can go to jail for it.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 10:41 AM

He was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust--i.e., having the wrong opinion.

And do you think that if you keep saying this enough, it will become true?

He was imprisoned for expressing the wrong opinion, just as he could be jailed for expressing a fraud, slander, libel, etc.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:43 AM

And do you think that if you keep saying this enough, it will become true?

No, the facts already bear it out. The fact that you won't acknowledge it is your problem, not mine.

He was imprisoned for expressing the wrong opinion, just as he could be jailed for expressing a fraud, slander, libel, etc.
No, it's not "just as he could be jailed for fraud, slander, libel, etc." That's ridiculous. By your logic the very concept of "freedom of speech" is meaningless. Because hey, it's ok to imprison someone if it's the "wrong" opinion!

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 10:43 AM

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

No, I'm not kidding. You really can go to jail for fraud.

Kaylee

22nd February 2006, 10:44 AM

And if it were a matter of falsified documentation, he would've been arrested for that.

He wasn't.

He was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust--i.e., having the wrong opinion.

You can keep harping on the "falsified documentation" angle if you like, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't work.

His falsifying the data proved state of mind.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:45 AM

His falsifying the data proved state of mind.You keep saying this as if it's relevant. It's not.

Cleon

22nd February 2006, 10:46 AM

No, I'm not kidding. You really can go to jail for fraud.

And that's completely irrelevant. He's not going to jail for fraud. He's going to jail for expressing an unpopular opinion.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 10:52 AM

And that's completely irrelevant. He's not going to jail for fraud. He's going to jail for expressing an unpopular opinion.

For "unpopular" read "illegal" and you would be correct.

There are lots of opinions that are illegal to express, no matter how popular they are. There are lots of opinions that are legal to express, no matter how unpopular they are.

In Austria, "Holocaust denial" is one that is illegal to express, for obvious reasons.

JamesDillon

22nd February 2006, 10:54 AM

There are lots of opinions that are illegal to express, no matter how popular they are. There are lots of opinions that are legal to express, no matter how unpopular they are.

In Austria, "Holocaust denial" is one that is illegal to express, for obvious reasons.

I don't think it's fair to say that there are "lots," and I think the point of those of us opposed to Mr. Irving's incarceration is that there should not be any. The reasons that Austria has a criminal law against Holocaust denial may be "obvious," but that does not make them good or reasonable.

Your fraud analogy fails because, like conspiracy, the elements of criminal fraud involve affirmative acts above and beyond the simple expression of an idea or opinion.

drkitten

22nd February 2006, 11:01 AM

I don't think it's fair to say that there are "lots," and I think the point of those of us opposed to Mr. Irving's incarceration is that there should not be any.

And, well, you're simply wrong.

For example, "fraud" is just "expressing an opinion." It's specifically expressing an opinion intended to decieve, and by that deception, obtain a benefit from another person. And there are certainly lots of fraudulent opinions out there.

The reasons that Austria has a criminal law against Holocaust denial may be "obvious," but that does not make them good or reasonable.

No, it doesn't. But if you want to persuade me that the Austrian laws are bad or unreasonable, then a better starting point would be an argument that didn't hinge on an obviously false premise like the idea that "expressing an opinion" should of necessity be free of criminal penalties. That's simply a non-starter, and no jurisdiction in the world would accept it for a second.