David Irving sentenced to 3 years (1 Viewer)

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

he'll probably die in prison and be considered martyr

cue: thousands of bad NS david irving tribute cds...

 

[Vinnie]

The holocaust is treated differently to other events in history because it is unique by intention, by organisation,by scale and by legacy. I'm not arguing in favour of Irvings sentence (although i shed no tears for him) but comparison with the gulags or most other incidents of genocide in history are dubious.

 

[oh shit]

are you sure those are the reasons why it is treated differently?

while i agree with the four factors you've listed, i don't think it's as simple as saying those explain why the holocaust is portrayed the way it is in current dominant discourse. i think it's much more complicated. history isn't set in stone, it's negotiated, and the way we conceive of the holocaust today is hardly limited to the events that took place 1933-45; and in many ways i think the popular ideas surrounding it are in essence ideological and inaccurate.

eichmann in jerusalem by hannah arendt provides the best example of what i'm on about, before anyone tries to extradict me to austria...

 

[Vinnie]

I agree entirely. That's what I was referring to by it's legacy.

are you sure those are the reasons why it is treated differently?

while i agree with the four factors you've listed, i don't think it's as simple as saying those explain why the holocaust is portrayed the way it is in current dominant discourse. i think it's much more complicated. history isn't set in stone, it's negotiated, and the way we conceive of the holocaust today is hardly limited to the events that took place 1933-45; and in many ways i think the popular ideas surrounding it are in essence ideological and inaccurate.

eichmann in jerusalem by hannah arendt provides the best example of what i'm on about, before anyone tries to extradict me to austria...

 

[La La]

how many times on this forum have you glorified rioters and people attacking police? you wouldn't like a law banning that. nor would i for that matter.
yeah i know it's not the same subject and neither is the moon landing, but you can't use liberal principles [ie genocide is bad] to justify illiberal laws.

retribution = punishment to fit the crime
is three years in prison fitting for making revisionist speeches?

i can't really see the correllation between my supposed 'glorification' of rioters and this, but i'll try to understand you - inanyways, it's a completely different matter being discussed here. irving did say (and im sure that there's some truth to it) that disease would have contributed to alot of the deaths in these camps. but in his speech he alleged that the gas chambers and crematoriums couldn't have been operational at the time due to limited resources.
that's nice mr irving, so let's believe you, as opposed to the hundreds of eye-witness accounts of the jews whose job it was was to empty out the gas chambers and stuff their bretheren into overworked furnaces. if that's the case, why dont we just use some smoke and mirrors, and forget all about Babi Yar! and while we're at it, the armenian massacre, the gulags and labour/death camps and ethnic cleansing in kosovo and around the world and other such historical atrocities (for example)

i have already said that i believe three years is too stringent. but that's not the point, and when his 'crime' was committed, under austrian law, the law stated that anyone speaking in this manner about the holocaust would be dealt with.

it's like pleading ignorance to strict singaporean drug laws. i dont agree with the laws at all, but if you fuck around with the singaporeans, they'll string you up. pure and simple.

obviously this issue bears little resemblance to drug smuggling, and we are talking about the limits of free speech. i guess what im trying to say is that irving stuck his hand in the fire, and he got burned. however he feels today, that's not gonna make a difference to the austrians, and he was aware of the holocaust-related laws at that time and which are to this day, in effect.

 

[La La]

ok, found an interesting splash in the sydney morning herald which i will post here; and it does raise some interesting points about his punishment and its stringency which i find myself agreeing with.

Jews split on jail term for Irving, Holocaust denier
Email Print Normal font Large font By Sam Marsden and Kim Pilling in London
February 22, 2006
Page 1 of 2

Bankrupt and jailed … Irving enters the court in Vienna on Monday.
Photo: Reuters

Advertisement
AdvertisementJEWISH leaders and historians have welcomed the conviction of the British historian, David Irving, on charges of denying the Holocaust, although some believe his three-year jail sentence is too harsh and could turn him into a martyr for the right.

Irving began his sentence yesterday after admitting a criminal charge of denying that the Nazis sent millions of Jews to the gas chambers.

His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said Irving would appeal against the sentence. "I consider the verdict a little too stringent. I would say it's a bit of a message trial."

Irving, 67, insisted during the one-day hearing in Vienna on Monday that he had had a change of heart and he acknowledged the slaughter of 6 million Jews during World War II.

He told the jury the Holocaust was "just a fragment of my area of interest" and that "in no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis".

But the historian, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived at court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books - Hitler's War, which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

In Britain, the chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Lord Greville Janner, said he was pleased by Irving's conviction. "It is the conviction and not the sentence that matters," he said.

"It sends a clear message to the world that we must not tolerate the denial of the mass murders of the Holocaust.

"The Nazis tried to wipe out an entire people. They murdered every one of my family on the continent, except those who lived in Denmark. We must learn the lessons of the past to build a decent society for the future. Irving's conviction, especially in Austria which was a former Nazi country, is important and appropriate."

The director of the Jewish Information and Media Service, Jonathan Romain, questioned if Irving should have been jailed for the crime.

Dr Romain, the rabbi of Maidenhead synagogue in Berkshire, said: "Personally I prefer to treat him with disdain than with imprisonment.

"The real importance of his trial is to reinforce both the terrible reality of the Holocaust and the determination never again to let it happen to any people."

A British military historian, Anthony Beevor, said: "However nauseating, these people should be confronted in debate rather than chucked into jail and turned into martyrs."

The chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jon Benjamin, said the conviction was a timely reminder at a time when Holocaust denial was gaining currency. "He is a poster boy for many people who have a certain political or philosophical outlook," he said.

Irving was arrested in Austria on November 11 when he arrived to give a lecture to students. He was detained on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws that make Holocaust denial a crime. The charges stemmed from speeches which Irving delivered that year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.

Irving has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and racist ideas in the past.

He has been quoted as saying there was not one shred of evidence that the Nazis carried out their Final Solution on such a scale, and has challenged the number and manner of Jewish concentration camp deaths.

Irving once famously sued an American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, for libel after she wrote that he was a Holocaust denier. He lost that case. The judge called him an "anti-Semite and racist" who twisted history, and the legal fees of $5.4 million bankrupted him.

Ms Lipstadt said yesterday that while Irving was a poor historian, censorship did not work. "He should be released to return to London and the sound of one hand clapping," she said.

Press Association, Knight Ridder

 

[La La]

here's what the stormfronters are saying

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=271607

 

[oh shit]

i can't really see the correllation between my supposed 'glorification' of rioters and this, but i'll try to understand you - inanyways, it's a completely different matter being discussed here.

Once again, the point i made is nothing to do with your political views, my political views, irving's political views (which seem more like Boy's Own adventure fantasy, if you read any interviews with him, it's really pathetic), the moon landing, or anything else, it's to do with the principle that no area of debate should be criminalised. you're trying to understand me but then you instantly misunderstand by returning to specifics rather than principle.

irving did say (and im sure that there's some truth to it) that disease would have contributed to alot of the deaths in these camps. but in his speech he alleged that the gas chambers and crematoriums couldn't have been operational at the time due to limited resources.
that's nice mr irving, so let's believe you, as opposed to the hundreds of eye-witness accounts of the jews whose job it was was to empty out the gas chambers and stuff their bretheren into overworked furnaces. if that's the case, why dont we just use some smoke and mirrors, and forget all about Babi Yar! and while we're at it, the armenian massacre, the gulags and labour/death camps and ethnic cleansing in kosovo and around the world and other such historical atrocities (for example)

so the danger is that if irving isn't punished by law then we'll see more people denying other atrocities?
but all those atrocities are denied or ignored, by the governments (where they still exist as they did at the time) or individuals responsible, and their political sympathisers.

the danger is not that we risk forgetting the holocaust or erasing it from history, but that we start to imprison everyone who does not agree with or denies the dominant western views of history and atrocity.
then you might find yourself in trouble for things you've written about US and British action in Iraq, and so might most people on this forum.

i have already said that i believe three years is too stringent. but that's not the point, and when his 'crime' was committed, under austrian law, the law stated that anyone speaking in this manner about the holocaust would be dealt with... it's like pleading ignorance to strict singaporean drug laws. i dont agree with the laws at all, but if you fuck around with the singaporeans, they'll string you up. pure and simple.

under german law around 1939, anyone who was jewish could be stripped of citizenship and property. that was the situation when their 'crime' was committed, and like the singaporeans, if you were a jew under the nazis, they'd string you up. pure and simple.

 

[La La]

under german law around 1939, anyone who was jewish could be stripped of citizenship and property. that was the situation when their 'crime' was committed, and like the singaporeans, if you were a jew under the nazis, they'd string you up. pure and simple.

i see your point bernard being jewish is something you are....you can, however avoid bringing drugs into a country. and like irving, if you know the law and you go ahead with your speech in the face of it, yes it sucks, but you will be treated accordingly!
i'm outta breath and its time for me to go home; i would however urge people to see what the wackos over on stormfront have going on in their revisionist forum.

 

[oh shit]

the point was that just because something is a law doesn't mean it is right

 

[La La]

the point was that just because something is a law doesn't mean it is right

i never disagreed with you on that

it's like pleading ignorance to strict singaporean drug laws. i dont agree with the laws at all, but if you fuck around with the singaporeans, they'll string you up. pure and simple.

 

[spiritualtramp]

here's what the stormfronters are saying

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=271607

So what? Are we expected to base our entire beliefs on the opposite of what people on Stormfront say? No, I think I'd rather decide for myself.

The stormfronters disagreed with the Nice Treaty too, I didn't see that stop lefties campaigning against it.

 

[broken arm]

what's the position on hunting down old nazi's and bringing them to justice?

 

[La La]

So what? Are we expected to base our entire beliefs on the opposite of what people on Stormfront say? No, I think I'd rather decide for myself.

calm down. did i say anything of that nature?

no.

i simply posted a link for people to look at to see what nationalists are saying. jaysus.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

what's the position on hunting down old nazi's and bringing them to justice?

i saw a documentary with steve guttenberg (before he was famous) about this

 

[oh shit]

it could happen to any of us

 

[ICUH8N]

IS IT SAFE

 

[broken arm]

 

[AlsationCousin]

What annoys me is the inability of people to escape from the formula that places freedom of expression at the centre of the discussion;

I grow tired of the constant repetition of the faded mantra that tells us that freedom of speech isn't just to cover popular opinions, but extends to the purveyors of unpopular, ill-founded, eccentric or prejudiced views.

David Irving's were all of those, but where does it get us in deciding whether or not he should have been prosecuted?

A few deranged people, some calling themselves historians, have chosen to contest and deny the irrefutable evidence of the holocaust.

Instead of ignoring them, as we ignore those who have seen the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers, we panic.

The Austrians go as far as making Holocaust denial a crime. Given their history, they do so partly for symbolic reasons, but also because they fear that allowing people to disseminate big lies could have repercussions for public order and the well-being of the nation.

They decided to bring Irving to trial because it was in the interests of their nation to do so. That's their business as a soveriegn nation.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

Everyone that died in the holocaust was a paedophile.