Holocaust jailed. (2 Viewers)

[xeuyrawp]

David Irving, one of the most controversial historians of our time, has been sentenced to three years in prison for claiming what Germanic nations describe as 'pro-Nazi' -- the denial that what we call 'Extermination Camps'.

A bit of background: Whilst the existence and purpose of the gas chambers specifically at Auschwitz II, and more generally at the other extermination camps (Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno), was part of Irving's theses, these details seemed to be the central attack on Irving by the media. More important to his overall works were the comparison between extermination camps and concentration camps -- I believe his argument has merit when you look at the semantics.

Take the location of Auschwitz -- there were 3 German camps there: Auschwitz I - III. Auschwitz I was the administrative centre for deportation of German enemies and was the original ground in the area. Auschwitz II was, I believe, a result of practical necessity, with the camp being constructed to kill all the excess, as it were. Auschwitz III was the labor camp. All three Auschwitz killed many people, yet only one of them is an extermination camp, and could easily be, in itself, an argument for the functionalism/intentionalism debate (with functionalism here being the obvious winner).

That being said, he's appeared to have gone very loony and, since his popular books, has backed down from his claims.

In my opinion, his claims were not dangerous to society, especially since he advocates educating oneself about the situation. Really, if you would pick up one of his pieces of clearly racist trash, (which are actually written quite academically) you would be able to pick up any other book about the true historicity of the holocaust.

The other facet of this issue is whether he should be banned. He was here, in many other Commonwealth nations, as well as in Europe.

In Europe, I believe, he should legally be deported. I don't see why he's banned here, though, when we have no laws against pro-Nazi activities. Personally, I would have liked to hear him speak.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

(I won't post up the whole article, as there are many more important parts to the page).

 

[mr_brightside]

He can believe whatever he wants. Whats the problem?

Why hasnt the KKK faced court then?

 

[withoutaface]

So long as he wasn't inciting violence then this is a disgusting perversion of free speech.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think this sends the wrong message to people... we want people to be learning and thinking critically to come to their own conclusions about what the truth is, not just spoonfeeding people information and telling them what to believe.

 

[crazyhomo]

]Austria is keen to show it is tough on Holocaust denial since a significant number of Nazi leaders including Adolf Hitler came from Austria, and Jews and other critics accused the country of glossing over its past for decades after the war.

show the world they are tough on nazi's by starting their very own thought police

 

[Generator]

An opinion piece from Crikey on the matter -

Why we should tolerate David Irving

 

[iamsickofyear12]

In my opinion free speech can only protect you for so long. If you say something as completely stupid and offensive as this guy did you deserve to go to jail. I don't think 3 years is enough.

My only issue is that there is no consistency. It is ridiculous that he goes to jail while these bloody Imam's that are saying all sorts of shit aren't touched. This is the start of a new trend that everyone should follow. Australia can start by locking up that Imam that recently said it was a girls own fault if she got raped for not covering up.

 

[sunjet]

Personally, I have not read any of his books only used quotes, but I don't understand how he can be jailed for what he did, if he has some sort of proof, he should be entitled to publish as a historian, even if it is pro-Nazi? Yes, I agree he has gone quite loony and don't agree with his theory that Hitler had no idea etc.

 

[withoutaface]

Personally, I have not read any of his books only used quotes, but I don't understand how he can be jailed for what he did, if he has some sort of proof, he should be entitled to publish as a historian, even if it is pro-Nazi? Yes, I agree he has gone quite loony and don't agree with his theory that Hitler had no idea etc.

As stated in the Crikey article, there were Holocaust denial laws enacted just after the war that haven't been repealed.

 

[nwatts]

Hah, lock him up I say. I'm all for freedom of speech, but i'm also a hypocritical bastard who likes to see stupid people removed from society. Austria had a warrant out for his arrest before he stepped foot in the country. He publicised dates/times of his lectures. The guy is a moron. Natural selection clearly isn't working. Let's give it a push.

I'll listen to arguments from holocaust deniers. Irving's argument has changed so many times since he first released 'Hitler's War' that it's offensive to my intelligence to even consider taking what he says seriously.

 

[PaleReflection]

What's worse is that the charge is based on something he said seventeen years ago. Wtf?

I cannot understand this.

 

[Generator]

Hah, lock him up I say. I'm all for freedom of speech, but i'm also a hypocritical bastard who likes to see stupid people removed from society. Austria had a warrant out for his arrest before he stepped foot in the country. He publicised dates/times of his lectures. The guy is a moron. Natural selection clearly isn't working. Let's give it a push.

As the editorial in today's Aus states, a gaol sentence for such a crime tends to be quite rare, so I think that it would be fair to assume that he thought that he could bring the entire saga to a close without having to face a prison term of some length (that he had a plane ticket booked for just after the trial suggests as much).

 

[nwatts]

As the editorial in today's Aus states, a gaol sentence for such a crime tends to be quite rare, so I think that it would be fair to assume that he thought that he could bring the entire saga to a close without having to face a prison term of some length (that he had a plane ticket booked for just after the trial suggests as much).

That simply suggests he's arrogant.

Quite rare? Sure. However he's the most publicised historian in the world who actively flaunts these controversial views. Common sense suggests Austrians would want to suppress him, rather than deport him. If it was a nobody on trial for denying the holocaust, I can confidently assume the outcome would be quite different.

 

[A1]

I'm not sure if many, or any of you had noticed, that things, situations or words that adversely affect jews are "dealt with promptly". There is no logic behind it, there does not have to be. It's just the way things work. Some call this the jewish control or jewish conspiracy.

Clearly, David Irving should not have gone to jail. He was an academic who had a particular "school of thought". There are literally hundreds of various fields in society that have different schools of thought - it could be industrial relations, economics, religion, politics, the sciences etc etc. No one gets jailed here, at most some heated arguments occur. David Irving's problems lie in the fact that his area of study was jews. More specifically, his area of focus was something that jews found displeasing.
On the one hand we get books such as Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which was a best selling hit. On the other hand we get books such as the Chronicles of the Learned Elders of Zion, which in BANNED. The difference between the books is the religion that they are deemed to offend. There is no logic behind the fact that one book is created a best seller, and the other which is banned, as they both have the same apperent offensive character. There is not meant to be logic. At present it's acceptible to bag Muslims about how nasty they are, but one cannot go near the topic of jews and how nasty they are. I mean, jews are great, lovely and so nice. Yet, with these glowing characteristics they seem to have a lot of enemies worldwide and throughout history.
http://christianparty.net/jewsexpelled.htm http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm
So is the problem with the whole world, or perhaps does the problem lie with the jews?

The jews treat non jews as morons. When it comes to anti jewish books, they are quickly discredited by jewish organisations and banned. The usual reason for the bans are that the books are nasty, promote hatred, provide false information and/or are hoaxes. At the same time the jewish lobbies make a decision on our behalf as to whether or not we can read the material. We are not provided an opportunity to read the material and make our own minds up, I mean, why, we are all too stupid and unworthy of that. The same was with David Irving. The jewish lobbies pushed, pressured and harrassed governments not to let him into countries, including Australia. The jews made the decision on our behalf that Irving was talking crap, end of story. Hey, how about giving me the opportunity to hear him out and make my own mind up!! There is no logic here. But then again, it's not about logic, or even common sense.
Jewish advocates and fighters for their cause, get awards, fame and fortune. Anyone who critices jews is deemed a loony, nutcase, monster, hater and the worst of all a "racist". In fact it's really easy to be a racist these days, just be critical of Israel and its policies. Let's take the illegal wall for example. The wall that the jews are building is illegal. The International Court of Justice at The Hague said signatories to the Geneva convention, such as Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling which is to tear the wall down. Let's not worry about the laws here, the mere fact that one is to be critical of this action, implies that one is anti-semetic (even though not all semites are jews), hence a racist. There are countless other examples, which I don't want to bore you with.
I won't even mention the hidden secrets that the jews pull when it comes to the VCE.

So, to sum up the story, Irving was gaoled because he was a naughty boy by saying naughty things. Simple as that.

 

[davin]

definitly disagree with the ruling...let the guy be racist, let him try to justify or doubt the existance of the holocaust. it will be VERY clear just how wrong he is to anyone that can read critically.

Freedom of speech should include the freedom to be offensive and wrong.

 

[crazyhomo]

On the one hand we get books such as Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which was a best selling hit. On the other hand we get books such as the Chronicles of the Learned Elders of Zion, which in BANNED.

i'm assuming this anti-semitic rant is meant as satire. either way i just want to point out that satanic verses was banned in many countries, and the protocols of the elders of zion was, and remains, a best seller in many countries (where it is also taught as historical fact)

 

[Riewe]

i guess that is the law in germany and austria, and he would've been fully aware of the consequences of such actions (if he is as intelligent as he thinks he is). How dumb must you be to give lectures and such in Austria, where he should've known that is was illegal, then arrive back to the country where there was a warrant for his arrest. He probably wanted attention and his arrogance blinded him to the fact that he could be spending time in prison.

I'm just glad that there is another loony behind bars, where he can't infect the rest of the world with his stupidity.

 

[davin]

loony as he is..... he should've had a right to say it though.

 

[crazyhomo]

Seriously, look at his past posts, its not satire. He blames the Jews for everything.

that's quite sad. at least the satanic verses is admitted to be fiction, whereas elders of zion, even though it is a proven hoax, is believed by many to be an legit historical document

 

[Markazzo]

I have been interested in David Irving, his life and work, for about three years now, and I find the jail term quite surprising. I also don't appreciate how his opinions have been caricatured and oversimplified by much of the media. Though he is certainly an anti semite, and a fabricator of history, I don't think its fair to make him out to be some deranged crackpot who randomly claims that 'there was holocaust and Hitler was good'. This is the image of Irving I've gotten from many of the TV reports I've seen.

For anyone interested in actually reading the man's work to make up your own mind, I would recommend starting with D.D. Gutenplan's 'Holocaust on Trial', about his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000. Next, maybe try some chapters in a revised edition of 'Hitler's War', though I wouldn't advise trying to tackle the whole thing.