David Irving
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
Grievous Angel
Beast of Burden
On the one hand I'm punching the air that he's got his come-uppance, on the other I suspect that, as with prosecuting Nick Griffin, no good will come of it.
john eden
male pale and stale
luka said:
There shouldn't be laws against him, no. But there should be laws against spreading divisive lies about "the" holocaust.
The difference with Nick Griffin is that the court cases involving Irving have actually established that he is flagrantly distorting the facts in his "history" books. Which is a good reason for them on its own.
(It also seems to me that Irving is a far more marginal figure than Griffin - i.e. that he mainly appeals to anti-semites and conspiracy theorists, whereas Griffin is more populist.)
He's right you know, Auschwitz was filmed at Clacton - Rudolf Hess tried to parachute into Scotland to explain this, but Zionist secret agents had developed a "birdie radar", enabling them to spot him coming a mile off, and to bundle him into a coaltruck which they pushed through a fake mountain to a secret location, while putting a Japan-made "Hess" replicant into Spandau, programmed (through mind control) to make up lies about gas chambers. Jewish scientists used the 'capture' money to create "AIDS", which they intended to drop on Field Marshall Rommel in Africa - the continent still suffers the awful effects of this Zionist terrorism today.
bassnation
the abyss
matt b said:
i agree it was pretty stupid and hes someone who has peddled poisonous racist lies, but three years?
does anyone think this is counter-productive? can you censor these things out of existence with the courts or is it best to defeat these lies openly with argument?
IdleRich
IdleRich
He is obviously stupid to go back to a country where he faces arrest. He's obviously an anti-semite, bad historian and a generally nasty piece of work... but you can't arrest someone for what they say can you? Especially when the West is lecturing the Islamic world on freedom of speech, it just shows that "we" haven't got such a handle on this position as we think.
I think that it is better with someone like this to hold up their arguments for everyone to see, show clearly that they are wrong and treat him with this distain that he deserves rather than prosecuting him.
I think that it is better with someone like this to hold up their arguments for everyone to see, show clearly that they are wrong and treat him with this distain that he deserves rather than prosecuting him.
D
droid
Guest
He started with the 'languishing in prison in Austria' Hitler analogies a few weeks ago, and is certainly a pretty despicable and dishonest character (as anyone who's read any of his work knows). Looked pretty shaken on leaving the court as well...
BUT
What about freedom of speech? Do his particular statements about the particulars of what he describes as 'the Jewish tragedy in WW2' (he wont use the word 'holocaust') constitute incitement to hatred and a danger to individuals and society? The fact that the prosectuition was based on something Irving said 15 years ago, and has since rescinded. makes me wonder about the motivations behind the trial and the strength of the Neo-Nazi movement in Austria...
Anyway - I wont be shedding any tears for him...
BUT
What about freedom of speech? Do his particular statements about the particulars of what he describes as 'the Jewish tragedy in WW2' (he wont use the word 'holocaust') constitute incitement to hatred and a danger to individuals and society? The fact that the prosectuition was based on something Irving said 15 years ago, and has since rescinded. makes me wonder about the motivations behind the trial and the strength of the Neo-Nazi movement in Austria...
Anyway - I wont be shedding any tears for him...
infinite thought
pigferatu
His jail sentence does run the risk of making him a martyr of the irrational - like we need more of those...
john eden
male pale and stale
IdleRich said:
I think one view is that you legitimise his views if you debate them. Plus some of the arguments are quite technical, iirc.
It's the same as "Intelligent Design" and "AIDs is a myth" - some stuff is SO BOLLOCKS that it just deserves a flat kicking every time it rears its head. Otherwise people end up latching onto the minutae of the arguments and it looks quite complicated so they just go "oh well, each to their own" or "oh I don't understand it all but maybe they have a point" and you end up with this retarded NONSENSE entering the mainstream by default.
Which in all 3 cases I have cited will end up being very dangerous if given the chance to bed down.
john eden
male pale and stale
droid said:
I think it does - any neo-nazi movement which is aiming for any sort of support will be confronted by the fact that most people see the holocaust as being one of the biggest human tragedies in recent history. If you could prove that it didn't happen and that the powers that be have covered this up, you are one step away from being completely loony and can pick up new recruits on that basis.
The BNP, before they modelled themselves on Le Pen and stopped all the "rights for whites" marches were seriously into all this stuff, distributing "holocaust news" etc.
droid said:
That does put it in a different context and I wasn't aware of it. I would ask in what manner he has rescinded it though and whether he still comes out with objectionable nonsense at his lectures etc.
Looking at it from another angle, I am guessing the Austrian govt can't just let him wander about their country given what they have said previously. He was clearly trying to force their hand.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
well you can, depending on what you say. this goes for at least all the european countries. austria etc have pretty legitimate reasons for having the law, considering its recent history. not that i agree with the policy, mind.
i don't see the link with islam in this case- freedom to offend is different from freedom to peddle lies.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I completely agree with this. I said yesterday (HIV myth debate) that there is a problem with objective reporting that gives equal billing to people on opposite sides of an argument even when one side is patently wrong.
I'm not saying that it should be held up for debate as such just clearly described as the lie it is whenever it is raised. He shouldn't go to jail for saying it he should just be a laughing stock (which he is).
ps it should have been "disdain" shouldn't it, why don't I notice those things when I'm typing?
IdleRich
IdleRich
Perhaps crudely, the defence of the cartoons has been described simply as "freedom of speech" which is the exact words that DI has used in his defence. The offended Muslims will clearly see that as one law for them and another for Jews. In fact they had already drawn this comparison.
I do think that you are right to say that there is a difference when it is a joke or an opinion from when something has clearly been shown to be a lie. Of course some holocaust deniers could argue that their position is an opinion (although presumably not DI as his arguments have been demolished in court).
I thought that before he had said he was simply wrong. In court however he gave a fairly mealy-mouthed apology where he said that the number of dead was (something like) 2.75 million and gave lower fatality figures than generally accepted for a number of the deathcamps. Not exactly contrition.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
well, there is 'one law' for jews (along with all other ethnic groups) and muslims (who are not an ethnic group)- the race relations act 1976.
however, you choose to be a muslim (or not, as the case may be) not something jews and other ethnic groups have.
irving's 'apologies'= bullshit
IdleRich
IdleRich
Specifically in this case there is a law against holocaust denial (in Austria) and there is no law against drawing "funny" pictures of Mohammed. I agree with you that the offenses are different (in degree and also in kind) but that's not how they are seen in the Islamic world.
Also, when people say that the reason there couldn't be a law against such cartoons because it would contravene "freedom of speech" then this principle is being held up as absolute so Muslims are entitled to feel hard done by when two weeks later it is shown that there are exceptions.
At bottom I do think that arresting holocaust-deniers contravenes freedom of speech.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
well, it is difficult to argue rationally with the .religious
IdleRich said:
has 'freedom of speech as an absolute' been the central point raised, or is it 'we have a right to question people's beliefs, even if this may cause some offence'?
i still don't see the link between irving and islam!!!!
IdleRich said:
yes. but seeing irving's face as the verdict was read out made me laugh- snivilling nazi-apologists don't get ANY sympathy from me
bassnation
the abyss
matt b said:
its been a long road to absolute disgrace, starting with the libel trial and now ending with his prison sentence and repudiation of all his former ideals. he looks totally defeated.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I thought that it was implicit in some of the things that were said.
I think that we can all agree with that.
Also, I think that this law is a special case (and only in the countries where it is deemed most necessary due to history), it doesn't represent the thin edge of the wedge for some creeping crackdown on freedom of speech.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
IdleRich said:
see, i don't think it was- its not an absolute in any country is it? if what you say breaks other laws (inciting murder for example), then you can be charged.
irving is a self-serving fascist who makes a living spouting nonsense to ideologically blinkered idiots (which, i guess is how he has that cheap air of arrogance)- he shouldn't be locked up, but should be villified, torn apart intellectually and generally ignored if he makes new statements. which is what happened in the uk since his libel trial.