PDA

View Full Version : David Irving jailed


Lazarus and the Gimp
20-02-2006, 19:14:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

I'm not about to shed any tears, but I'm quietly surprised that he got as much as three years.

Lazarus and the Gimp
20-02-2006, 19:15:43
This quote by Irving is quite funny.

"I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

Dyl Ulenspiegel
20-02-2006, 19:19:34
Surprised me too, even considering he's a repeat offender and the jury didn't buy his "I've changed" story.

Chris
20-02-2006, 19:19:50
Not much of a historian is he.

Even though I think he's an idiot, not really comfotable with such thought police laws.

Gary
20-02-2006, 19:26:48
Hmm if its right to gaol folk for believing unreasonable stuff and preaching it, then there's a lot of cult members that need to keep looking over their shoulders.

Ridicule not gaol seems more appropriate. One may find one's just made a "martyr".

I'll go read the article now :)

notyoueither
20-02-2006, 20:50:34
There's gotta be information in evidence that isn't in the article.

Speech in 1989. He and pled guilty and denounced his statements. Three years?!

Venom
20-02-2006, 21:10:56
I just farted and it smells.

Lazarus and the Gimp
20-02-2006, 21:21:03
Originally posted by notyoueither
There's gotta be information in evidence that isn't in the article.

Speech in 1989. He and pled guilty and denounced his statements. Three years?!

Since his reputation got destroyed, he's largely moved away from history towards anti-semitic conspiracy theories. At the time of his arrest, he was on his way to address a far-right group. That could be a factor.

JM^3
20-02-2006, 21:32:22
you gotta go whee the money is...

JM

devilmunchkin
20-02-2006, 22:48:18
you'd think the destruction of his reputation would be enough punishment in this day and age..

Lazarus and the Gimp
20-02-2006, 22:52:53
It's more likely to get him on "Celebrity Big Brother".

devilmunchkin
20-02-2006, 22:57:07
or an audience with the Iranian president :D

Dyl Ulenspiegel
20-02-2006, 23:01:24
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It's more likely to get him on "Celebrity Big Brother".

Now that's medieval cruelty.

Chris
20-02-2006, 23:03:48
I read some of his quotes, he isn't exactly a sweetheart.

Spartak
21-02-2006, 06:49:15
indeed

Gary
21-02-2006, 09:08:10
Am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic (to be polite) that a short while ago some countries were defending the Danish media's position on long published cartoons, under the banner of "free speech", and now the same countries find it ok to gaol someone for speaking tripe about the Holocaust ? Perhaps they might consider moving on from the "we must be seen not to be denying the past, whatever the cost" position, to something more defendable ?

Funko
21-02-2006, 09:12:34
I think his views are pretty appalling but I don't think he should be jailed purely for denying the holocaust.

Chris
21-02-2006, 17:49:55
That's the Austrians for you.

notyoueither
22-02-2006, 04:03:37
Originally posted by Gary
Am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic (to be polite) that a short while ago some countries were defending the Danish media's position on long published cartoons, under the banner of "free speech", and now the same countries find it ok to gaol someone for speaking tripe about the Holocaust ? Perhaps they might consider moving on from the "we must be seen not to be denying the past, whatever the cost" position, to something more defendable ?

Did the Austrian government officially support the Danish paper?

And I don't see a contradiction, btw. Unless you think that being in favour of laws against yelling 'fire' in a theatre automatically put you on the sidelines of free speech.

King_Ghidra
22-02-2006, 09:18:28
i'm of the 'what a twat but shouldn't be jailed for it' opinion

but as gary alluded to, i'm intrigued by the absence of people of the 'i don't agree with what you say but i'll defend to the death your right to say it' opinion sticking up for him in the media

i see your point nye but i don't think it's really an analogue. stating in an academic sense that you don't think a historical event occurred is clearly not the same type of thing as shouting 'fire' in a cinema or 'there's a bomb in my bag' at customs or suchlike, and it's also not the same as perfectly understandable arrestable activities such as incitement to murder and suchlike

clearly there is overwhelming evidence that the holocaust did occur but it's better that that argument is played out and won in the public realm than in the courts i think

Gary
22-02-2006, 09:20:38
Western society generally did, I don't recall any Austrian dissent.

Mmmm .... unconvinced the 'fire' comparison is valid ; personally.

Gary
22-02-2006, 09:22:15
Cross posts I expect, but KG agreeing with me :eek: Run ! The sky must be falling in ! :D

MDA
22-02-2006, 12:15:11
that's a really odd law to still have around 50 years after the war

he does seem like one of those people that really isn't worth the trouble of punishing, if you let him talk to the public long enough, he'll hang himself with the rope he's given

Nills Lagerbaak
22-02-2006, 12:45:39
There's definitely an inconsistency here. I mean freedom of speach is never absolute, every country has their exeptions, so either allow people to talk about anything they like, or create fairer boundaries (i.e. why should the Jews be spared insult and noone else.)

King_Ghidra
22-02-2006, 13:08:29
The law Irving broke is about denying that the holocaust took place. It's nothing to do with any perceived insult to jews (and/or the other victims of the holocaust like gypsies, gays, etc.).

Nills Lagerbaak
22-02-2006, 15:13:20
I know, but what the muslims righly have a problem is why allow the Danish papers to publish the cartoons under the pretext of free speach although they know it insults them and then lock another guy up because he insults the Jews.

the fact that the law was created not to protect from insults (but for some old, political reasons) doesn't matter. It's about perception.

And I maintain you can't have freedom of speach for somethings and not others.

So I would say ban all religious related insults (be they holocaust denial or pictures of mohammed) or allow anything.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-02-2006, 15:50:11
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak

And I maintain you can't have freedom of speach for somethings and not others.


Why should we be forced into "everything or nothing" thinking? I see no problem with the principle of setting down limits, where to do otherwise caters purely for dangerous extremists..

King_Ghidra
22-02-2006, 15:53:32
I know, but what the muslims righly have a problem is why allow the Danish papers to publish the cartoons under the pretext of free speach although they know it insults them and then lock another guy up because he insults the Jews.

Is that really what 'the muslims' (whichever branch or group of muslims you have a psychic hotline to) have a problem with?

Assuming it is...then for one thing you are talking about things that have happened in two different countries and in completely different contexts. Dismissing the diferences between the two situations is just stupid, unless you want to subscribe to some idea that basically everything is connected to the zionist plot to rule the world.

At the end you say:

So I would say ban all religious related insults (be they holocaust denial or pictures of mohammed) or allow anything.

but Irving's trial has nothing directly (whilst obviously implicitly) to do with jews, judaism, race or religion. It is about the principle of making it illegal to deny the historical fact of a particular event. This is not a question of insults, it is a different kind of thing altogether. It is a question of freedom of speech, but not in the same way. If muslims want to get excited about this they are on very shaky logical ground.

Finally:

And I maintain you can't have freedom of speach for somethings and not others.

Well there is no workable system which does not accept the principle that there are different levels of freedom of speech or expression. Ultimate freedom of speech is clearly not going to happen, because there are so many areas of life where literally allowing anyone to say or express anything would be rather undesirable. And the minute you compromise that principle at all by limiting expression you are right back to the current system, which is some kind of balance between the two.

Funko
22-02-2006, 15:54:26
Good post K_G.

Nills Lagerbaak
22-02-2006, 16:05:29
Why did people invent the holocaust denial law? They must have considered it important enough to be exempt from freedom of speach.

Maybe other things should also be considered as important.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-02-2006, 16:07:01
If we ever have another WW2, they might be.

Funko
22-02-2006, 16:07:23
I don't agree with the holocaust denial thing being an offence and I agree less that drawing cartoons of any religious figure should be an offence.

Nills Lagerbaak
22-02-2006, 16:21:44
I do think there is a problem with the "west" not understanding how Islam is part of the identity of many muslims, hence the import or oft percieved "trivial offenses" like burning koran, depicting the prophet, foreign forces merely being present in a muslim country.

I would normally agree with Funko about the relative importance of the two things but not being religious or a muslim I don't either of us are qualified to comment.

maroule
22-02-2006, 16:28:22
The "workable system" KG talks about is very simple really : no beliefs, political or religious, is beyond attack, only messages that can lead to hatred potentially spilling into violence should be condemned. That's deemed the case specifically for negationism (is that justifiable, that's another debate), and if muslims think thats was the case with the danish cartoons, well, just take it to the courts.

You can very freely insult the jews if you wish, painting a picture of a rabbi beating up palestinian kids or what have you. That puts it on par with the Allah/turban bomb, and that's freedom of speech.

IMO denying the Holocaust has been deemed crossing the line in Continental Europe (and not in the anglo-saxon world, for obvious historical reasons), because that's basically this type of historical fabrications that did put 6 million people in gas chambers in the first place (protocol of Sion, etc.). It's not about protecting jews from insults, it's about learning from our mistakes.

A Allah/turban bomb obscure drawing in Denmark is not the first step towards the final extermination of Muslims. Now, if there was an open call for violence against muslims, the authors would be condemned immediately.

Besides, IMO all religions should get insulted on a more frequent basis, judaism included, it's very healthy. And being rubbished daily isn't exactly so detrimental... it certainly doesn't prevent the Scientology from growing...

Funko
22-02-2006, 16:30:51
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
I would normally agree with Funko about the relative importance of the two things but not being religious or a muslim I don't either of us are qualified to comment.

I don't think that "how offended someone might get" about something should be the measure of what is legal or not. So therefore me being or not being muslim is irrelevant.

Chris
22-02-2006, 17:02:06
I haven't really offered much of an opinion about this, but I will briefly.

Because Austria was part of the nation that actually carried out the holocaust, they take the phrase 'never again' very seriously, to the point of jailing people that try to rewrite the history of it. This is NOT a religious issue, its my opion they would have such a law if 6 million buddists or Chinese or Eskimoes ahd been murdered in Austria/Germany.

The Danish cartoons were intended to test the boundry of Free Speech, to see how Muslims would react to a Western concept, and to a large extent the Muslim world failed this test, and m,any European States (and the USA) made hypocrits of themselves for 'appologizing' for a private paper printing what it wanted.

As for the Austrain law, I oppose such laws on principles several have already mentioned, the most important being in the USA you can basically say whatever you like and not be jailed for it (there are a few exceptions) so it goes against the grain to see someone jailed for basically being an massive ass historically speaking.

I would also oppose any law protecting any religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other.

Free speech means protecting the speech we hate, NOT the speech we like.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-02-2006, 01:21:41
There are always some aspects of speech that are under a content control. The publication of building instructions for explosives for terrorist purposes, the advocacy of child pornography, defamation and libel cases, calls to kill/maim/rape other people etc.

At its core, the law goes back to 1945, and from that context the attempt to whitewash the nazis was inseperable from getting their ideology back into the political arena. The law was directed against Wiederbetaetigung, which means against the resumption of nazist activity.

So there have been very good reasons for that law. But I'm quite torn about maintaining it. Establishing a nazi party is no different from setting up a criminal organisation in the mass murder business, so that ban will have to stay. Irving's holocaust denial is of course linked to nazist fringes, but what has been a clear and present danger just after 1945 no longer is one in 2006. So I'm leaning towards the "let idiots parade on the idiot parade" solution.

Caligastia
23-02-2006, 21:43:26
Originally posted by Funko
I don't think that "how offended someone might get" about something should be the measure of what is legal or not.

Exactly. If that were the measure then you'd only have to insist that you were very, very, VERY OFFENDED for the law to take your side.