Comments on: David is taken aback

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:12:25 +0000

Actually, Knucklehead, it's not just that there's no mechanism to prosecute fraud in history writing. It's also that some of Irving's fraud would not have been discovered but for his suing Lipstadt, because he tended to cite sources that only he had access to. Although many historians had written Irving off even prior to the trial, it was difficult to document just how flawed his books were until he made the error of suing Lipstadt and allowing her lawyers to get hold of his papers as part of the liberal discovery process that exists in Britain. This, in turn, allowed Evans, a historian hired by Lipstadt's defense, to discover just what an egregious liar he was, even in his "history" books. See my previous post about the Lipstadt trial and Irving.

By: PeterUK

PeterUK — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:23 +0000

It is the hypocrasy of Austria which is quite amazing,Austria has never come to terms with its involvement with war crimes.Irving was a scapegoat of Biblical proportions,he was used to expiate Austria’s sins.
Whilst the odious creature is guilty of spewing his vile falsehoods,he is a Holocaust denier,Austria was complict in the Holocaust,something which never surfaced in this show trial.

By: Knucklehead

Knucklehead — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:32:35 +0000

Always Right,

Good catch! The Leftoids who want the Euro-welfare state are the same ones who don’t want surveillance in the US but are not the least bit interested in the fact that wiretaps and other electronic surveillance are carried out in Europe at levels beyond the worst of what they “fear” over here.

By: Always right

Always right — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:45:21 +0000

People here have already said most of what I was going to say. However, I noticed nobody picked up on the following point:

Despite precautions, the Austrian political police are believed to have learned of the visit by wiretaps or intercepting e-mails.

Here we have the “political police” (What the heck is that?) intercepting regular Univ student organization(s) and foreign individuals’ exchange. The “political police” don’t even have to have proof of terrorism-ties or sympathies. In fact, I don’t even know how enthusiastic the Austrians’ stand on GWoT, but now we know “All your thoughts belong to me (the Big Brother)”.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:35:22 +0000

I agree that Holocaust denial should not be criminalized. But I also think there’s a stronger case to be made for the other side–its criminalization–than I previously thought.

I explore both sides of the question in this post on the subject, “We didn’t start the fire: should Holocaust denial be criminalized?”

Like most things, the debate was more complex than it seemed at first blush.

By: Knucklehead

Knucklehead — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:24:01 +0000

Waterdragon,

To the best of my understanding Irving was “driven into bankruptcy” but never fully paid the settlement the courts found against him. If I’m incorrect about that I’m willing to see evidence to the contrary.

So the fraud he was committing was, in fact, uncovered but only because he was dumb enough to sue Lipstadt in England.

There is no mechanism to uncover and prosecute fraud in the sense of historical writings. Other historians can do the sort of thing Lipstadt did but they are the ones subject to civil prosecution for doing so should folks like Irving be dumb enough to sue them.

If there was a mechanism to uncover and prosecute the sorts of fraud Irving committed we’d be jailing a whole lot of “social scientists” and “education researchers”.

What needs to happen is for many areas of what passes for academic activity to recover themselves and start publicly shaming the likes of Irving and other frauds. But that would interfere with their social[ist] agendas and clean an awful lot of houses they’ve grown quite accustomed to living in.

By: waterdragon52

waterdragon52 — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:10:00 +0000

I’m with Patrick Tyson on this. As Deborah Lipstadt said in an interview on the Feb. 20 CBC radio program “As it Happens”, although she is not a fan of laws against Holocaust denial and jailing deniers, Austria was a special case because of its prominent contribution to the Holocaust and Irving got what he deserved for intentionally trying to contravene Austrian laws and for offering the patently phony “recant” to the court, replete with incorrect dates (shades of his failed libel suit against Lipstadt).

Roger says only jail fraudsters. Irving’s suit against Lipstadt was a fraud as the British judges found he completely distorted historic facts to try to make his case.

By: RogerA

RogerA — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:02:29 +0000

Wow–near total agreement that irrespective of what Mr. Irving said, free speech is a value to be respected–The Austrians are to be condemned, and I would hope the EU weighs in on this–Austrians, as well as Europeans (of all nationalities and ethnic persuasions) should be very very afraid right now.

By: markus

markus — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:01:20 +0000

David Irving’s website contains an interesting article by Christopher Hitchens, from 1996, more or less defending this same “psychopathic anti-Semite”.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/Hitchens0696.html

His last sentence says it all, I think: “Currently…there is a taboo. And who really believes that if it were lifted any honest person would be the loser?”

By: ptiusa

ptiusa — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:59:13 +0000

Criminalization of thought and ideas is nearer (geographically) than you may think. Holocaust denial can be a criminal offense in CANADA. Ernst Zundel was prosecuted by the Crown in 1988 for publication of pamphlets denying the Holocaust, under section 177 of the Canadian Criminal Code which states that it is a criminal offense for anyone to promote hatred which he knows is false and which also causes injury to the public interest. Zundel was found guilty at both trials, and the second one specified that he spread hatred deliberately. James Keegstra was similarly prosecuted in Canada for a criminal offense.