Historian David Irving Goes To Jail... Right or Wrong??

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Feb 2006, 23:25

Irving got 3 years in from an Austrian Court for denying the Holocaust in 1989.

Just punishment or the return of Nazism?

You decide............

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Feb 2006, 23:40

I dont know. He's obviously a bit of dickhead for denying an historical fact, but there are also many people (mainly Turks) denying the mass-murder of Kurds in Turkey... or people who openly approve of the hiroshima bombings etc etc.
I dont think one should have to go to jail over it, especially not for 3 years.
it seem a bit OTT to be honest. especially cause it's already a long time ago, and it seems he's changed his mind about it ever since...

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 21 Feb 2006, 05:16

I think it is wrong in the extreme.

The guy can say it didn't happen if he wants IMO. he may be completely wrong and the majority of thee world may hate him, laugh at him, know he's wrong etc... isn't that enough?? his own views make him a laughing stock and ruined his reputation... but going to jail for 3 years just cause he said it didn't happen?!?!?!

Fucking ridiculous.

Print pictures that offend Muslims etc and that is ok, no jail term for that. Say something didn't happen to Jews then go to jail... double standards.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 21 Feb 2006, 08:46

Hmm.. I agree with what Yi says David Irving is an asshole for denying an obvious historical fact - and Degen he has changed his opinion (saying it did happen at the 11th hour) but it wasnt enough to save him. He hasnt changed his mind quickly in 1989 AFAIK.
The problem with Irving is he hasnt looked at the facts/evidence and then formed his own interpretation like most historians should - he has taken his own point of view which is just plain wrong and then tried to twist the facts available to make them fit the pattern, so he's working backwards.
I sort of agree with Degen in a way - the guy is an idiot but why should he go to jail for expressing an opinion???, except Austria has some of the strongest anti Nazi laws in the world, denial of the Holocaust has been a crime there since 1947 so why should "we" judge that by "our" values?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2006, 16:32

I abhor Irving's historical analysis, but in a free society he should be allowed to make it. Ridicule him by all means, but prosecution and jail? Outrageous.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 21 Feb 2006, 16:48

It is silly and a waste of time and cash, but he is a looney.

Its like me going to jail for saying God isnt real in any form or way (which he isnt) and religion is a joke. But then at least he would only go to jail, I may be killed for saying that to some nutters.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:10

Denying a proven historical fact, such as Irving denying the exsistance of gas chambers in Auschwitz, is not quite the same as one denying God's exsistence Romero - which though many people believe in God, hasn't been "proven" outright to be "right" or "wrong" by anybody on both sides of the argument.

I agree with you Mark, jail is a bit OTT no? Though like you I have no time for his interpretation of facts and blatant lies.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:51

Iran's idiot in charge just noted that The West's freedom of speech seems to be open to discussion, as apparently you ARE allowed to say Mohammad was a terrorist, portraying him with a bomb as a head, and thus insulting about 1,5 billion people but if you say something untrue about Jews, you can go to jail over it.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:10

Well the whole thing is a bit of an insult to everyone, waste of cash is the bigest thing! what sort of fool takes him to court? its wrong, but also right as I think he did more than just say he denies the holocaust, I beleve he was teaching people that it was a lie etc.. thats why he was taken to court, its not Just becuase he denies it I am sure there are more things behind the case. On the face of it mind you, its bullshit waste of cash, good job.

Yi, yes insult Jews and they may say a few words, they dont riot and kill people over it!

BIG difference, and the fact the Holocaust was a "fact" is also very different.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2006, 21:33

Maybe Mohammed did wear a bomb on his head? How the fuck shoudl I know? It was 2,000 years ago and there's only written text as "evidence" of his behaviours. The Holocaust is a mere 60 years old and extremely well-documented; not least by many survivors who are still with us. But that's getting away from the point... Regardless of whether Irving's theories are bullshit or not, he should be allowed to say what he likes, unless we want a society where people are arrested and put in jail for freedom of speech (I know Muslims would like that). Yes, his views are repugnant in light of what we KNOW, but if he wants to say them that's up to him. If he wants to stick a balloon up his arse and tell everyone he's Jesus Christ that's his business. Unless he threatens or encourages violence against Jews I see no case to answer. Still, if some had their way, Irving would be sharing a cell with a couple of Danish cartoonists. What a fucked-up world, eh???

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 21 Feb 2006, 22:03

i think its a big dent to freedom of speech, personally i dont think that we REALLY have it anymore, just the illusion that we do until we get thrown in jail for expressing our opinions...however i think with freedom of speech comes responsibility, Irving is one of a few who has been jailed for denying the holocaust, another is ernst zundel, but for me they didnt do it to incite racial hatred and unrest, which is the difference between them and the dutch cartoons...i think that they knew exactley the response they would get from the muslim community, and that is the difference of freedom of speech atleast for me, is the intent behind it.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Feb 2006, 23:33

It's impossible to prove that the Danes (not Dutch) intended to inflame racial tensions to the point of genuine violence and threat; no one could have realistically predicted the nonsense that subsequently occured (six months later, no less). To demonise the cartoonists is a Politically Correct motivation designed to placate Muslim outrage. If the Danes want to question Islam and poke fun at it in a satirical way that's their right. How dare a religious (or political) group dictate what we think and say in public. It's barely a step away from an Orwellian nightmare. When 50,000 Christians complained to the BBC about Jerry Springer, the BBC gave a two-fingered 'fuck you' by proceeding to broadcast the show, rightfully in my opinion. I believe Jesus was black (not a dark-skinned Jew, mind), foul-mouthed, wearing a nappy, and proclaimed gay. Now that's blasphemy isn't it? So if that freedom of artistic expression is allowed why not a cartoon? The answer is blindingly obvious but no one has the guts to say it.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 21 Feb 2006, 23:58

Markgway wrote: Danes (not Dutch)

sorry my bad

but looking at it from a general view of the past year or so, how can one not think that by "poking fun" at islam that its not going to inflame the groups? i mean over the past year or so muslims have been deamonized something chronic as "terrorists" and other such stuff like being made responsible for claims about british culture etc. etc. which might just be the reason that all this kicked off a few months after publication. sometimes i really hate humans were just so dumb we cant even live in peace together, and to try and acheive peace we use violence...as far as i can see if something doesnt happen to make people grow the hell up, were gonna see another holocaust. already people are calling for "something to be done" already america have concentration camps or rather "forced labour camps" uhm why?

and it may be the danes right to "poke fun" at islam but isnt it also muslims rights to be able to live without such ridicule/abuse/demonization? you only gotta look at the british/american media to see how they are being treated, i mean you hear something bad happens and you automatically know who will be blamed, either the muslims or the immigrants increasingly so, is it just becuase they are "bad" people or are the media just trying to put attention on this group of people? in some rare cases they are not but so much media attention is focused on their crimes it ridiculous...

personally i think the jailing of David Irving and the like is way OTT and a great blow for peoples idea of "free speech" but as i said before with free speech comes responsibility and to be able to judge the effects of you words...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Feb 2006, 02:48

and it may be the danes right to "poke fun" at islam but isnt it also muslims rights to be able to live without such ridicule/abuse/demonization?

A qualified yes. As I said before IF the Danish cartoons had in anyway threatened or encouraged violence and active discrimination against Muslims then, yes, that would be a problem for me. I don't want to see anyone suffer for their beliefs. However, I don't believe that religion or politics (or a combination of both) should be censored or withheld from the public domain for fear of upset. We don't do it when it comes to ANY other religion, so I don't see any reason why Islam should be made exception. Once you start on this road of religious control... you go down a very dangerous path of facism. Yes, sometimes freedom of speech can emotionally hurt (though I would hardly class mockery of a religious figure a personal slight), but that's a small price to pay for maintaining the rights we as westerners hold dear. You don't have to like it... but you have to accept it. Or do I call the Police next time someone makes a "Jock" joke? If someone takes the piss out of Sean Connery should I organise a march...?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Feb 2006, 08:37

*Agrees with all of Mark's post*

Irving should be allow to say his views, even if they're just plain wrong. He has become a laughing stock over here and his reputation ruined. Isn't that enough???
However, he was tried under AUSTRIAN not BRITISH law which is 1 of 11 countries with laws against denying the Holocaust and we dont have that, so we can't judge "us" with the same criteria.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 22 Feb 2006, 09:01

I personally would have liked them to have cut out his tongue and cut off his hands. that way he would not be able (in jail or not) spread claims that cause such upset and violence across the world. It is one thing to have the freedom to hold your own beliefs and predudices, its anothr to make a living convincing others less capable of thinking for themselves that his predices are in fact facts.

but then its like a lot of things, if you do that to him then why not to so many other people and groups that are doing the same?? the tabloids are the worst offenders, at least irving never hid his agenda, the tabloids go out of their way to spread fear panic and predudice accross the western world. I believe in all seriousness that the sun newspaper (and its european counterparts) is the most evil creation in the western world to date and is directly responsible for the poor state of western society today. Whilst, you, you and the people you know might not take such papers for anything more than entertainment I dont think anyone can argue that they sway public opinion on most things including makig people feel ok about hating foreigners and being abusive to others in general....

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 22 Feb 2006, 13:07

Markgway wrote:
A qualified yes. As I said before IF the Danish cartoons had in anyway threatened or encouraged violence and active discrimination against Muslims then, yes, that would be a problem for me. I don't want to see anyone suffer for their beliefs. However, I don't believe that religion or politics (or a combination of both) should be censored or withheld from the public domain for fear of upset. We don't do it when it comes to ANY other religion, so I don't see any reason why Islam should be made exception.

but in the light of recent events dont you think its slightly stupid to antagonize certain groups, when relations are already pretty fragile with them, regardless of whether you mean to or not? one wouldnt go into a church and insult christianity, neither would you go into a synagogue and insult juadism, and you certanly wouldnt insult jews openely now after WW2 otherwise your anti-semitic, a nazi supporter etc. etc. but why should you be able to insult islam and get away with it, after all arabs/muslims are semites too..therefore arent the danish cartoonists being anti-semitic too?

i mean irving ok he said this, he insulted the memory fo the jews, but did any of you read his work? or any of zundel's? or other such people. we all just seem to accept that he says history is wrong, he must be bad guy. i have looked into some of Zundel's work, another holocaust denier (who is also in jail), and yeah indeed i was like wtf, your crazy of course it happened, and i believe that it did happen, but some of his points are pretty interesting, im not saying that the holocaust never happened, you cant deny that it did, but also i think there is more to it than what history books and the media tell us. if i learnt anything in this life its that not everything is what it seems, you cant just look at it from one side.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 22 Feb 2006, 13:23

I can't claim to have read Irvings work beyond a few chapter of one of his books I was lent when discussing this elsewhere. It is true that in its usual way the press has simplified the whole thing in terms of the statement 'he denied the holocaust happened'. He is not in fact denying various things happened, rather the scale and the manner in which they happened - following his so called evidence numbers were massively exagerated, instead of millions there were only thousands and there was a logic behind those that did die and therefore people of like mind feel that 'holocaust' is a vastly innacurate word.

then there is the other side to their arguement which is basically racist propoganda about people of the jewish faith, but in the same way people who believe in creationism concentrate on the 'intelligent design' part of their arguement rather than the religeos side, so the holocaust deniers concentrate on the dodgy facts and figures rather than their personal beliefs.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Feb 2006, 15:37

Shen wrote:but in the light of recent events dont you think its slightly stupid to antagonize certain groups, when relations are already pretty fragile with them, regardless of whether you mean to or not?

Possibly... but stupidity isn't against the law. The Danes choose to make a comment about how terrorists use Islam as a cover for their evil deeds: a relevant point if there ever was one. Someone had to have the guts to make it.

one wouldnt go into a church and insult christianity, neither would you go into a synagogue and insult juadism

I'm not aware of anyone going into a Mosque to distribute the cartoons... do you know something I don't?

and you certanly wouldnt insult jews openely now after WW2 otherwise your anti-semitic, a nazi supporter etc. etc. but why should you be able to insult islam and get away with it, after all arabs/muslims are semites too..therefore arent the danish cartoonists being anti-semitic too?

You would if you were in the middle east... Muslim-controlled newspapers there feature cartoons which make offensive references to Jews and Nazism. But that's OK? If Jews started suicide bombings on the London Underground... you would expect - and be given - satricial jabs at them. It's no different for Muslims, though they would like it to be.

if i learnt anything in this life its that not everything is what it seems, you cant just look at it from one side.

There's a balance. If the cartoons had been designed solely to upset Muslims then the Danes should've used discretion not to print them. But these cartoons were satirical: they had valid points. 1. To question the use of Islam as a shield for terrorism. 2. The prohibition of portraying Mohammed in visual. Are you saying these questions should not be aproached in a free society? Whatever the reason... neither the law nor facist Muslims should have the right to stop freedom of speech.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 22 Feb 2006, 16:27

Markgway wrote: Possibly... but stupidity isn't against the law. The Danes choose to make a comment about how terrorists use Islam as a cover for their evil deeds: a relevant point if there ever was one. Someone had to have the guts to make it.

Christianity uses the excuse to kill hundreds of thousands, commit war crimes etc. etc.!! Bush is like "oh god told me to go invade iraq" or the whole "i did it for the safety of this country" so its not just these *terrorists* who use islam to cover their evil deeds...yeah people make fun of bush, but it doesnt result in riots and protests...but no-one really comments on how bush makes the excuse of god and patriotism to be a terrorist himself...

i dont think we should be concerned about the "muslims" taking away our freedom of speech, be more concerned with our governments...ID Cards, Microchipping, Police State and so on, the muslims dont need to do it to us, were doing it to ourselves...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 22 Feb 2006, 17:01

Shen wrote:

i dont think we should be concerned about the "muslims" taking away our freedom of speech, be more concerned with our governments...ID Cards, Microchipping, Police State and so on, the muslims dont need to do it to us, were doing it to ourselves...

Exactly what I've been thinking the last 4-5 years orso. It's ridiculous how OTT the laws have become concerning privacy etc. We're just a couple of attacks away from 1984.

Also, the same danish newspaper that printed the anti-muslim cartoons, had rejected anti-christian cartoons earlier because they might upset Christians. So that's a huge double standard right there. Apparently it's OK to upset Muslims, but they dont dare to upset their christian readers.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Feb 2006, 02:56

I agree about the ID cards (which I'm firmly against) and Bush's disturbing use of Christianity as an excuse for war (however, he has and will continue to be ridiculed for it). Bush gets ripped daily in the west for his politicization of religion (and general stupidity). I don't recall Christians protesting, marching, clubbing people to death and burning down buildings over it... maybe I missed that?

Also, the same danish newspaper that printed the anti-muslim cartoons, had rejected anti-christian cartoons earlier because they might upset Christians. So that's a huge double standard right there. Apparently it's OK to upset Muslims, but they dont dare to upset their christian readers.

I didn't know that. That IS wrong if double-standards are being employed. I can't and won't defend that.

the68monkey · Post by **the68monkey** » 23 Feb 2006, 03:38

Mordib wrote:It is one thing to have the freedom to hold your own beliefs and predudices, its anothr to make a living convincing others less capable of thinking for themselves that his predices are in fact facts.

And this is why I believe he deserves the sentence. Irving questioned the existence of gas chambers in the well-documented, despicable genocide of Jews during WWII. In Austria, to deny the Holocaust is a crime, and perhaps especially sensitive since it is the country that gave birth to the leader of the Nazi movement, Adolf Hitler. Irving wasn't just sitting around having coffee with friends one day and casually mentioned that perhaps there were no gas chambers; he is a prominent historian who was not remorseful for denying one of the worst atrocities in western history. Three years? Seems like a small price compared to the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in concentration camps, only to be denied they ever existed. . . .

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Feb 2006, 10:40

Austria is on a guilt trip with that verdict. No question. Like sentencing some prat to three years will make up for Hitler? "Austria's OK: they hate Nazis you know??" You can't just jail people because they talk bullshit. If you could Romero would get a life sentence. I find Irving's reviews repugnant, but he's entitled to come to whatever conclusion he so wishes. He didn't encourage violence or hate against Jews and thus should've never been charged in the first place. Freedom in this world has never been so non-existant.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Feb 2006, 10:59

Actually isn't the law rather ironic, at the time of the War, Austria was an even more anti semitic country than Germany was.
Out of interest what other countries have the Holocaust denial law apart from Austria?

"You can't just jail people because they talk bullshit"

Maybe not, if thats ALL they do but you don't think radical clerics like Hamza and others should be jailed for what they have preached?
EDIT: Answered my own question there, Hamza encourages violence and hate, whereas Irving is just a prick.