David Irving sentenced to 3 years (1 Viewer)

[Bellatrix]

I don't think that the argument that "Irving did what he did 17 years ago and he's sorry now" holds any water. Throughout those 17 years, Irving has repeatedly expressed the views, in interviews and in numerous publications, that:

- Hitler never ordered "The Final Solution" and he didn't know it was happening
- The Holocaust wasn't systematic genocide so much as a series of unrelated atrocities
- There were never any gas chambers
- Auschwitz wasn't a death camp, just a labour camp with an oddly high fatality rate

He has also made countless speeches to this effect, often to extreme right-wing groups such as Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. His repentence and his arrest took place pretty much simultaneously.

In the years prior to the Holocaust, racist and inflammatory statements, which were made with total impunity, helped to create and encourage widespread Anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere. The presence of historians and other social commentators to counter ridiculous ideas such as "The Global Jewish Conspiracy" didn't stop these ideas gaining validity.

Irrespective of whether or not Irving's sentence is too harsh, (which I believe it is) there is a time and a place for free speech.

And I think the millions of Tutsis, whose genocide was both incited and aided by the Rwandan media, will back me up on this.

 

[Super Dexta]

not to mention that the big sap pleaded guilty. granted, the amount i know about the austrian legal system could be written on the back of a postage stamp (a small postage stamp, too), but I can't help thinking that if he pleaded guilty, he can't be too surprised that he was jailed. and now all the far-right types can go "help! help! we're being oppressed!".

it all looks like a nice manipulation of rather well-meaning laws to me.

 

[ICUH8N]

Consider also the political aspect of the arrest/trial/sentence after the stink over Herr Haider...

 

[1000smurfs]

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

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.

The question is were they right to put him in jail? Free expression IS central to the discussion. There is a pretty big !ironyyyy in jailing someone for promoting facisim. Are they protecting jews by putting him in jail? They might be making it worse by making him a martyr.

In the years prior to the Holocaust, racist and inflammatory statements, which were made with total impunity, helped to create and encourage widespread Anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere. The presence of historians and other social commentators to counter ridiculous ideas such as "The Global Jewish Conspiracy" didn't stop these ideas gaining validity.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

And I think the millions of Tutsis, whose genocide was both incited and aided by the Rwandan media, will back me up on this.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips,

Irrespective of whether or not Irving's sentence is too harsh, (which I believe it is) there is a time and a place for free speech.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin



On the other hand I do belive that dangerous words and ideas which have the potential to incite hatred are somewhat like guns and cars, dangerous death machines which you should have to prove you are not moron
to use. I'm happy to live in a society that restricts the use of guns so I should be just as happy to live in a society where you can't say what you want at anytime out loud.


So the question is am I happy to curtail free speech when it protects me from morons? Yes up to a point. Expressing an opinion should never be illegal but dissemenating lies should be. However I don't want people put in jail. Jail is an unimaginative solution to crime at the best of times and is particularly inappropriate in this instance, in fact it's probably counter productive. A better punishment would be public ridicule and then public service to aggrieved parties. Make Irving work for three years in an Austrian Holocaust museum. Repeat offenders could be banished from the society.

 

[Bellatrix]

Imposing jail sentences on those who publically deny the Holocaust is one aspect of how Germany and Austria ensure that they, as nations, take collective responsibility for the atrocities they committed. David Irving isn't a guy at a dinner party spouting off opinions, he's essentially a Nazi propagandist.

Free speech doesn't exist anywhere. It's curtailed by laws against, for example, libel and slander. I don't understand why it's such a sacred cow - the fact that governments enact laws to protect their citizens isn't always a pre-cursor to imposing a fascist dictatorship. In a democracy people should be protected from propaganda and having lies told about them in the media by more than just "Don't worry, you'll get to tell your side of the story and that'll be grand." The media isn't pure or objective and often serves interests other than those of the people it purports to inform and therefore should be regulated. David Irving was widely published and his work was originally given such a high level of credence that his crazily inflated statistics for the numbers killed in Dresden were taken as fact.

I'd have given him six months but then I don't have a chip on my shoulder about being a generation removed from ethnic cleansing.

Having a system of justice isn't fascist. There's nothing particularly ironic about sending propagandists to prison.

And "imaginative sentencing" is far more likely to end up in cruel and unusual punishment than impassive sentencing.

 

[1000smurfs]

Imposing jail sentences on those who publically deny the Holocaust is one aspect of how Germany and Austria ensure that they, as nations, take collective responsibility for the atrocities they committed. David Irving isn't a guy at a dinner party spouting off opinions, he's essentially a Nazi propagandist.

And needs to be dealt with I agree, i wasn't trying to portray him as innocuous.

Free speech doesn't exist anywhere. It's curtailed by laws against, for example, libel and slander. I don't understand why it's such a sacred cow - the fact that governments enact laws to protect their citizens isn't always a pre-cursor to imposing a fascist dictatorship. In a democracy people should be protected from propaganda and having lies told about them in the media by more than just "Don't worry, you'll get to tell your side of the story and that'll be grand." The media isn't pure or objective and often serves interests other than those of the people it purports to inform and therefore should be regulated.

freedom of speech is a sacred cow because of historical precedent.

"No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves."

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err."

If you talk shit you should be called on your shit, on this everyone agrees, but if you take it too far , nobody will be free becuase they'll all be too busy suing each other or worse the govenment will be accusing you of slander and putting you in jail in order to protect society

David Irving was widely published and his work was originally given such a high level of credence that his crazily inflated statistics for the numbers killed in Dresden were taken as fact.

He was then widely discredited. I'd never even heard of him until this whole hullabaloo.

Having a system of justice isn't fascist. There's nothing particularly ironic about sending propagandists to prison.

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"

i'm not saying he's innocent but I don't want a double standard to exist.

And "imaginative sentencing" is far more likely to end up in cruel and unusual punishment than impassive sentencing.

How so? Impassive jailing of the socially deprived for petty crime is pretty cruel.

 

[ICUH8N]

I feel that (trite quotes aside) the whole totalising discourse about freedom of speech is a little silly. No-one is disputing that people should be free to express unpopular and/or inflammatory opinions, and that this right should be afforded legal protection, but there are exceptions. I don't accept that making exceptions is the start of a slippery slope, but I will concede that the exceptions themselves are mutable.
I can see why there is a law against holocaust denial in Austria and Germany, and I do have a chip on my shoulder about being a generation removed from ethnic cleansing; that chip is not guilt, it's an intense discomfort with the idea that a unique historical event (I agree with the end-result of the Historiker-Streit in the 80s) might in time become just another atrocity. From our perspective (and I'm talking about Germans here) it is unique, it should continue to be considered unique, and the lessons it has collectively taught us about ourselves (the ones about ordinary evil, and eternal vigilance being the most important ones, to my mind) need to be remembered, by everyone. I hope that in time, we will no longer require the threat of punitive action to stop people trying to deny the undeniable, and that this particular law will fall off the statute books. It shouldn't be required, yet I feel that for the time being, it is required.

//edit: spelling

 

[ICUH8N]

I suppose that I should add, 3 years is far too harsh. I'm inclined to think that any custodial sentence is too harsh, and certainly pointless, because it's not going to achieve anything meaningful except raise Mr Irving's profile.

 

[oh shit]

Imposing jail sentences on those who publically deny the Holocaust is one aspect of how Germany and Austria ensure that they, as nations, take collective responsibility for the atrocities they committed. David Irving isn't a guy at a dinner party spouting off opinions, he's essentially a Nazi propagandist.

no he isn't a nazi propagandist, but "essentially" is always a useful way of stretching facts

Free speech doesn't exist anywhere. It's curtailed by laws against, for example, libel and slander. I don't understand why it's such a sacred cow - the fact that governments enact laws to protect their citizens isn't always a pre-cursor to imposing a fascist dictatorship. In a democracy people should be protected from propaganda and having lies told about them in the media by more than just "Don't worry, you'll get to tell your side of the story and that'll be grand." The media isn't pure or objective and often serves interests other than those of the people it purports to inform and therefore should be regulated. David Irving was widely published and his work was originally given such a high level of credence that his crazily inflated statistics for the numbers killed in Dresden were taken as fact.

as you've already mentioned, the law has the torts of defamation. whatever credibility Irving may once have had was torn to shreds in his own libel trial, a long time ago. those who persist in believing him - well, no amount of proof will convince them he's wrong, and putting irving in prison will hardly do any better.

I'd have given him six months but then I don't have a chip on my shoulder about being a generation removed from ethnic cleansing.

so having a chip on your shoulder about past state actions would justify a greater prison sentence against an individual today? i don't understand this.

Having a system of justice isn't fascist. There's nothing particularly ironic about sending propagandists to prison.

nothing ironic at all, except that the nazis themselves imprisoned people who disagreed with their views. 'justice' is a concept that is infinitely elastic, "rational justice" is one of modernity's greatest tool of oppression, i blame Kant.

And "imaginative sentencing" is far more likely to end up in cruel and unusual punishment than impassive sentencing.

yeah i agree with this bit

 

[Bellatrix]

no he isn't a nazi propagandist

The judge in his libel case found that:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews.

Irving has repeatedly misrepresented facts in order to glorify or vindicate either individual members of the Nazi party or the party as a whole. His arguments are consistently made from a right-wing, pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler standpoint. These arguments have been made in publications, in speeches and in interviews. I wasn't hiding behind the word essentially. It was meant in the most literal sense. The man disseminates lies and propaganda. He is a Nazi propagandist.

as you've already mentioned, the law has the torts of defamation. whatever credibility Irving may once have had was torn to shreds in his own libel trial, a long time ago. those who persist in believing him - well, no amount of proof will convince them he's wrong, and putting irving in prison will hardly do any better.

The law on Holocaust-denial in Germany and Austria isn't about convincing people or winning them over. What these states are saying is: this is what we did, this is fact, we can never, ever hope to make sufficient reparation for it but what we can do is insist that we, as nations, take collective reponsibility for it. They feel that the one truly heinous act that later generations can commit is to shirk that reponsibility. So they've criminalised that act. Hopefully, as ICUH8N has said, that won't always be necessary.

so having a chip on your shoulder about past state actions would justify a greater prison sentence against an individual today? i don't understand this.

Between one and two generations ago, the Germans, Austrians and others engaged in the ethnic cleansing of over six million people. As "past state actions" go, this one fairly breaks the mould. Furthermore, this sentence wasn't imposed because of the message it gives. They could have sent out a stronger message if they'd wanted to - Irving got a three year sentence, of a minimum 1 and a maximum 10. A man committed, what in Austria is regarded as a crime. He returned to Austria, despite the fact that it had been made clear to him that he was not permitted to enter the country. He was arrested. He made a guilty plea. He was sentenced. His sentence was at the lenient end of the spectrum. That's that mattress man.

 

[1000smurfs]

No-one is disputing that people should be free to express unpopular and/or inflammatory opinions, and that this right should be afforded legal protection, but there are exceptions. I don't accept that making exceptions is the start of a slippery slope, but I will concede that the exceptions themselves are mutable.

Any exceptions made weakens the ideal. Who decides what the exceptions are to be? The state should not dictate what ideas we can and can't be exposed to.

My problem is not so much with Austria's intentions in making holocaust denial a crime and something to vigoriously combat more so with the way they've gone about it. Jail is a stupid punishment:

it's inappropriate : Nazis jailed dissenters

it presents a double standard: The EU is happy to print/reprint offensive cartoons ( Austrian newspapers reprinted them ! ) but books and statements which offend jews must be censored.

it's dangerous : 'Mein Kampf' by David Irving


By the way i think ye picked me up wrong when i refered to 'imaginative sentencing', like i was trying to think of a clever way to torture him. I was refering merely to a more constructive alternative to jail.

Here's another one: Fine him for a huge amount and give the money to jewish charities.

 

[1000smurfs]

The following opinions are in relation to the wider issue of free speech and
aren't meant to be directly compared to the Irving case:

There was a Nazi/BNP/racist/dickhead meant to talk in a debate in ucd last year,I think AFA ireland disrupted the talk by force, this was silly, since it was a debate they should have let him say his piece and then rip him to shreds (verbally). This might have actually made some would be racists in the audience change their minds. I have enough regard in the general intelligence of the public to doubt that any of them would be turned to on racism, after seeing him publicly ridiculed.

There was a discussion on the general board ahwile ago about a Nazi/racist metal band trying to play the lower deck. I would be annoyed if it was illegal for them to do it but I have no problem with private individuals doing their upmost to get the gig pulled. I'd be horrified if people let them play without putting up a fight. In this case good taste (should and i hope did) win out over the freedom of expression of idiots.

just to piss off ICUH8N i'll end with another trite quote:

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. "

Mark Twain

 

[oh shit]

The judge in his libel case found that:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews.

Irving has repeatedly misrepresented facts in order to glorify or vindicate either individual members of the Nazi party or the party as a whole. His arguments are consistently made from a right-wing, pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler standpoint. These arguments have been made in publications, in speeches and in interviews. I wasn't hiding behind the word essentially. It was meant in the most literal sense. The man disseminates lies and propaganda. He is a Nazi propagandist.

he doesn't work for the nazi party, he is however lauded by neo-nazi groups, but i see your point.
still, i would question the extent to which people actually took him seriously even before his original libel hearing.

this is an interesting interview that suggests to me that he is not in fact nearly as dangerous as some might like to believe, and that he is certainly not a political ideologue with a clear rational basis for his statements. he is, in fact, a total fucking idiot aka buffoon
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1692086,00.html

The law on Holocaust-denial in Germany and Austria isn't about convincing people or winning them over. What these states are saying is: this is what we did, this is fact, we can never, ever hope to make sufficient reparation for it but what we can do is insist that we, as nations, take collective reponsibility for it. They feel that the one truly heinous act that later generations can commit is to shirk that reponsibility. So they've criminalised that act. Hopefully, as ICUH8N has said, that won't always be necessary.

unfortunately i don't regard a curtailing of liberties as a legitimate means of reparation for genocide, and as i've written elsewhere on this forum, i think that the dominant interpretation of the holocaust is in itself a useful tool for oppression in other contexts.

Between one and two generations ago, the Germans, Austrians and others engaged in the ethnic cleansing of over six million people. As "past state actions" go, this one fairly breaks the mould.

does it really break the mould? certainly in scale and organisation it was unprecedented, but does regarding the holocaust as an aberration that is seperate from the rest of modern history really help protect us from a repeat?
i don't think it does, i'd tend to see it as paradigmatically modern rather than limited to one geographical location or time. that's not to deny it or devalue it, just think about it in a way more relevant to current political policies and ideas, blablablah.

Furthermore, this sentence wasn't imposed because of the message it gives. They could have sent out a stronger message if they'd wanted to - Irving got a three year sentence, of a minimum 1 and a maximum 10.

it's a potential maximum of 20 years i think. but i'm confused, you say that they aren't sending out a message with this sentence, but you've already argued that the law itself exists because:

What these states are saying is: this is what we did, this is fact, we can never, ever hope to make sufficient reparation for it but what we can do is insist that we, as nations, take collective reponsibility for it.

so while i think the sentence itself is probably subject to a number of considerations quite seperate from the need to make a statement (given that around 25 such prosecutions take place a year in Austria under this law, there is no need to use irving's sentence as a deterent); none of those considerations are relevant to my argument about the principle of having this law in the first place.

A man committed, what in Austria is regarded as a crime. He returned to Austria, despite the fact that it had been made clear to him that he was not permitted to enter the country. He was arrested. He made a guilty plea. He was sentenced. His sentence was at the lenient end of the spectrum. That's that mattress man.

that's tautological - he's committed a crime because it's a crime and therefore he's guilty.
i'd say more than anything that he is stupid.

finally, i'd say that if he ever actually did infringe on the human rights of anyone else, there are plenty of laws capable of dealing with him.
but until he does infringe on anyone else's rights, i'd like to imagine that we can as a society tolerate his.

 

[AlsationCousin]

Irving's supporters -- and I include in that group not just the pathetic fools who greet with laughter his comments about "Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars," or "ASSHOLS," at the white-supremacy rallies and conferences he often addresses, but the more upscale fools who are not Holocaust deniers but who continue to believe in his efficacy as a historian -- have long tried to cast those who oppose Irving as enemies of free speech.

To be opposed to facism is the essence of supporting free speech.

 

[1000smurfs]

To be opposed to facism is the essence of supporting free speech.

I'm with you man, which is why I oppose jailing people for expressing their idiotic views.

 

[AlsationCousin]

Irving has been poster boy for the neo-facists for years. His books are constantly quoted by them to give them the veneer of respectibility and credibility.
He's been going round Europe stirring up and encouraging all these groups for years. No liberal should lament his imprisionment...he wouldn't lament yours.