The good news: David Irving has been sentenced to three years in jail in Austria for Holocaust denial.
The bad news: Wait, there is no bad news.
The good news: He’s not going to be able to be a guest speaker at the Iranian Holocaust denial conference.
I’m sorry. I understand what Deborah Lipstadt says about freedom of speech, but I can’t help but be happy that such a disgusting man as Irving is going to jail, at least for a while, to pay for all the ammunition he gave Jew-haters the world over.
I completely 100% agree with Deborah Lipstadt on this, because free speech has to be absolute, otherwise it’s not free speech at all … but there’s a part of me going “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer person.”
I think the best part of this is that now he’s come out and backtracked on his views (“No, I really truly do believe it all happened, I’m not just trying to save my sorry arse, honest guv!”) a lot of the scum who lionised him are no longer going to be able to quote his “facts” in their arguments because it will completely undermine the case they’re trying to make. He’s killed his credibility with the only group who found him credible. Fantastic.
Sorry Lizzie, but free speech is never absolute. I am never free to defame my neighbour, or free to communicate national secrets to an enemy, or free to incite violence and hatred against others. And so on …
The Irving verdict is a great one, to my way of thinking. Austria (yup, they can be blamed for being more Nazi than the Germans 70 years ago, and have a legacy of Nazi-sympathisers Kurt Waldheim and Georg Haider in more recent times) considered its former role and current vulnerability to Nazi resurgence and, in a democratic way, decided to pass laws banning Holocaust-denial, Nazi regalia and Nazi parties.
That’s their right and, as a democratic country, Austria can choose to repeal those laws at any time. That Austria still thinks such behaviours deserving of sanction and punishment is a reflection of its views about its own society.
Irving broke the Austrian laws (knowing full well that they existed) and got the result that he deserved. Besides, he’ll probably be out in a year, given the European proclivity against truth in sentencing.
As for the alleged 11th hour recanting – you should read what he said. He actually never acknowledged the Holocaust and the genocide of 6 million Jews.
You and Deborah shouldn’t waste any liberal sympathy on him. He’ll be back.
Lizzie.
Oops, my bad. I just read a news report (assuming it’s correct) that stated:
“Asked by the presiding judge Peter Liebetreu whether he had denied in speeches in 1989 that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews, Irving said he had until he had seen the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.
“I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn’t saying that anymore and I wouldn’t say that now,” Irving said.
“The Nazis did murder millions of Jews,” said Irving, who answered the court in fluent German.
Irving’s answers failed to impress state prosecutor Michael Klackl, who called Irving in his opening statement a falsifier of history who was dressed up as a martyr by right-wing extremists.
“The David Irving I heard today in the court was not the David Irving I got to know in preparing for this trial,” Klackl told Reuters after the court adjourned for lunch.
“The court will have to decide whether Irving has made an honest confession or is merely engaged in tactics (to reduce his sentence),” he said.”
So – his acknowledgement of the Shoah is a good thing, but only brought about by the charges laid against him, because that’s the first time that Irving has ever publicly acknowledged Nazi mass murder of Jews occurred. All his writings and utterances have been to deny it – even past 1991 when he alleged he read Eichmann’s papers!
As I said, he’ll be back. Both he and now Hamas (but formerly Arafat) are past masters of double-speak.
To me, there is a delicious irony in all this. David Irving tried to abuse British libel laws to silence Deborah Lipstadt’s criticism of his crackpot theories. Her criticism was accurate and painstakingly documented, but he gambled that the cost of travel to Britain to defend the lawsuit, along with the cost of legal fees, would force her to retract. Now, this mamzer Irving who tried to stifle his critics wants to paint himself as a martyr to free speech? Like the AP and the NYT, he must think we have very short memories.
Sorry to be the devil’s advocate but isn’t locking him up in a Viennese prisoner would just give neo-Nazi’s more fodder? Irving was dying into obscurity since the 2000 libel case decision in England. Discredited, the only reason why he’s still in the news is because of the travel bans and now this.
Anti-semites are anti-semites in spite of reality – I mean, a Swiss judge saying the Protocols is a forgery and still they distribute it en masse. David Irving speaking to fascists and neo-Nazis would not make them more anti-Semetic.
I mean, what’s the best way to discredit Iran’s Holocaust-denying conference? Allow someone who lost a libel case with the judge affirming him to be an anti-Semite and a racist to speak, of course.
Besides, isn’t this proof all anti-Semites are stupid? Why the heck did he leave UK for Austria? He obviously took some pain to go there – most Western countries have travel bans against him so he had to go there by road via France instead directly by plane. How stupid is he? I may oppose such laws, but 3 years ought to be good enough punishment for incredible stupidity.
I agree with those who think locking this man up was at best a bad idea. And “Yes” even though I hate what he said, I see only greater harm by making him stop speaking by force of arms (Jail).
Evil flurshes in the dark, to kill it you have to bring it into the light. It won’t burn up, but you at least you can see it and fight it.
But wait, there’s more.
Now Irving has retracted his recantation. Looks like it was all done to try and get a lighter sentence. I’d never want to wish anyone malice but … 10 years seems like a nice round figure to me.
Even his 12 year old daughter has disowned his views, and is carrying around “The Diaryof Anne Frank”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10370162