Should David Irving go to jail for holocaust denial?

[Duke of Gloucester]

I can see merit both sides of the debate. In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sensibilities of the Austrian people. However punishing him so severely means he will no longer be seen as a fool or villain, but a martyr for freedom of speech. It seems to me that making holocaust denial illegal makes it look as if we can't argue the point based on historical evidence, and the best way to attack these pernicious ideas is to present the evidence that shows they are wrong.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734648.stm

[Fragony]

No it's rediculous. Why shouldn't you be allowed to denie it, freedom of speech if you ask me. Who takes it seriously anyway.

[Adrian II]

In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sesnsibilities of the Austrian people.

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive. But I agree with your conclusion. An added argument for it would be that free debate of historical events is in the interest of all. Without it, we would not be able to determine which ideas are 'pernicious', as you put it, and which are not.

[InsaneApache]

One things for sure. This will only promote the idea that the west is 'run' by international Jewry, with all the crap that entails.

A list of the countries that have Holocaust denial laws: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland.

I knew about Austria, Germany and Israel, but I have to say that I'm surprised at extent of the list.

The mans an idiot anti-semite, this will only enhance his reputation with the far right looneys.

[rory_20_uk]

A massive fine to be spent on Holocaust memorial charities.

Locking him up is pointless. Best bankrupt the bastard...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

did he basically just say that most of the jewish people who died in the Holocaust died of disease and not the gas-chambers... or something like that?
but i think that if he said the holocaust never happened then it is no wonder austrians are annoyed by him... but i think 3 years is a little harsh

[InsaneApache]

Best bankrupt the bastard..

Too late, someone's beat you too it.

In 2000 Irving was forced into bankruptcy when he unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic who had called him a Holocaust denier. He was ordered to pay £3 million in legal costs and had to sell his Mayfair home.

Serves him right.

[Kanamori]

Well, I guess many of the people of those countries still feel it is necessary to forcibly quiet those whom they disagree with.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive.

This is the strongest argument for his not saying the things in the first place and then being vilified when he did, but I don’t think we should send people to jail for being offensive, even if they are really offensive.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

This is the strongest argument for his not saying the things in the first place and then being vilified when he did, but I don’t think we should send people to jail for being offensive, even if they are really offensive.

People who deny the mistreatment of Germans by the Russians after WWII insult me, my family and the victims of those crimes, but there's no law against it. People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that. People who deny the genocide of... [et cetera, et cetera, et cetera]

Democrats offend me. Hugo Chaves offends me. Socialists offend me. Communists offend me. But there aren't any laws against those.

I'm sure I offend alot of people, but I'm not outlawed (yet).

So really, does it matter if something's offensive? Freedom of speech covers this type of hogwash and, no matter how deranged it is, as long as no one is directly, physically hurt over it, it is his right to say it as far as I'm concerned.

Europe preaches to America about civil rights, but they don't even know what freedom of speach is.

[Tribesman]

Europe preaches to America about civil rights, but they don't even know what freedom of speach is.
Err ....who is it that keeps closing down Zundels site and the Earl Kruger "memorial" sites Capo ?
Don't climb on that high horse , you might fall off

[Adrian II]

Socialists offend me.

Bar one, young man; I have never offended you.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Bar one, young man; I have never offended you.

Socialism in general offends my sensibilities, adrian
Though as far as I know, we cool.

[Louis VI the Fat]

People who deny the mistreatment of Germans by the Russians after WWII insult me, my family and the victims of those crimes, but there's no law against it. People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that. People who deny the genocide of... [et cetera, et cetera, et cetera]

Good point, lad. There are laws about the Armenian genocide though.


Here's a brief article about some current developments in France about this subject, dealing with both the Shoah and Armenia and the awkward position you can get yourself into when trying to balance political correctness and freedom of speech:

French historians issued a common declaration to annul all parliamentary historical decisions, including the Armenian genocide law.

The discussion on “rewriting history” that flared in France last week is gradually intensifying.

“The duty of rewriting history in a free country does not belong to the parliament or any legal authorities,” the French historians stated. Parliamentary decisions, they defended, make it difficult to conduct research on history and education.

Four years ago, the French Parliament recognized the incidents of 1915 as the “Armenian genocide” despite Turkey’s harsh objections. In the single-paragraph law passed with pressure from the Armenian Diaspora in France, the statement “France clearly recognizes the 1915 Armenian genocide,” is noted.

A Paris Court ruled against famous French encyclopedia, The Quid, for printing the Turkish view on the so-called Armenian genocide last July. The same court had previously ruled against famous historian Bernard Lewis for a relevant article he published in the newspaper Le Monde and ordered him to pay a symbolic sum in compensation of one euro.

Tension mounts over the motion suggesting that school textbooks “should particularly teach the positive sides of French colonialism,” which was adopted in the French parliament in February; a decision that shocked French historians.

[Slyspy]

Who would have thought that Austria would have been so touchy about Nazi propaganda and rabble-rousing? I mean, I wonder what historical reason they could have for having such laws?

It is part of their penence, part of the debt they and every country which surrendered its Jews must pay in some form. Who else should be the guardians of the Holocaust's horrors than those who were involved? A fitting task I think.

If a foolish man like Irving wants to challenge that then fair enough, and he will pay the price if found guilty. It happens to be prison because fines obviously have no effect, and I doubt such a man fears humiliation either. Besides which he was warned that he faced arrest and still went back, presumably as some kind of stunt. Maybe they should find him a Jewish cellmate.

[Bartix]

I too reluctantly say he should be allowed to utter his terrible lies. Show the images from KZ camps to people, is enough to disgust any one with Irving. In general it is good to test theories of history, but the ones very false as well as offensive are better left behind.

In some cases it is not allowed to lie.. Content declaration of food...

People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that.

Ironic that Turkey has strict law against not denying this

[GoreBag]

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive.

The dead don't take offense. Are there any living survivors of Auschwitz? I don't know.

He basically retracted the statement during his trial. Imprisoning him is silly, but so are the Holocaust speech laws.

[Adrian II]

The dead don't take offense.

But the living take offense on their behalf.

Are there any living survivors of Auschwitz? I don't know.

Sure. There are Auschwitz (survivors') committees in Australia, Hungary, Russia, Austria, Israel, Slovakia, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Ukraine, France, The Netherlands USA, Germany, Poland, Greece and Rumania. Of course many survivors have died over the years, and most living survivors are well over 60 years old.

[A.Saturnus]

Of course many survivors have died over the years, and most living survivors are well over 60 years old.

If that isn't actually all, then there's something wrong with the space-time continuum.

Well - it's not unusual that a law protects rights of some individuals by infringing on the freedom of other individuals.
The question always is - do you value certain rights higher than certain freedoms.

Yes, but the accountability may not create special cases, which precisely is what holocaust victims are at the moment. If the state outlaws the denial of the holocaust, it must also outlaw the denial of other atrocities to be morally consistent. Otherwise, it would imply that other victims have less reason to be offended if the cause of their suffering is denied.
Thus consistency would lead to laws against argueing about any cause of death and suffering where involved people may get offended, which would seriously constrict science and political debate.

As has been said in another thread, offence is unavoidable, therefore it cannot be a reason to restrict freedom of speech.

[Ser Clegane]

As has been said in another thread, offence is unavoidable, therefore it cannot be a reason to restrict freedom of speech.

So consequently all racist speech (as long as it does not result in tangible discrimination or does not incite violence) should be allowed as well as all forms of slander or personal insults, as those would only cause "unavoidable offence", which cannot be a "reason to restrict freedom of speech"?

Thanks, but "no thanks".

[Adrian II]

If that isn't actually all, then there's something wrong with the space-time continuum.

Think again please. On the very day Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, Jan. 27, 1945, a boy by the name of Gyorgy Faludi was born to a Hungarian prisoner with the help of a Russian doctor.

Just as I wrote above, most living survivors are well into their sixties.

[Pindar]

In the public square, people should be free to be stupid.