Should David Irving go to jail for holocaust denial?

[QwertyMIDX]

To answer your question - yes, I think that statements like this violate the human dignity of the victims.

This is a slippery slope and not one we should be willing to start on. Should someone be jailed for supporting Marxist theory because doing so would violate the human dignity of the victims of the USSR? This is an idea we need to stay away from, there is almost nothing a person can say that won't deeply offend at least one person on the planet. I, for one, do not like the idea of creating a hierarchy of victims and tell people what does or what does not amount to an affront to their human dignity.

[Ser Clegane]

This is a slippery slope and not one we should be willing to start on. Should someone be jailed for supporting Marxist theory because doing so would violate the human dignity of the victims of the USSR?

I disagree - the Marxist comparison you make is quite different from this case. Apparently Irving did not get his sentence for supporting some abstract theory, but for directly mocking the victims of the Holocaust, i.e. basically saying that those victims who were talking about gas chambers were not right in their head.
This goes, IMO, clearly beyond having an "opinion" that people could strongly disagree with and therefore might consider to be offensive - it is a direct insult.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You do realise that most of the people in power in Germany and other countries were at the most teenagers? There is no such thing as hereditory guilt, you are not responsible for the actions of your ancestors and you have no obligation to make up for them any more than any one else.

Yes, any Austrian or German below the age of 75 is by definition innocent.

But, Austria and the German Bundesrepublik also represent the continuity of the Austrian and German states. Their taking full responsibility for what happened is precisely the way by which they could reclaim their place amongst the civilized nations.

To put it differently, the individuals are innocent, the states can (perhaps: could) be held accountable.

A zero tolerance policy on mockery of the victims of nazism is therefore prudent for Austria.

[A.Saturnus]

To put it differently, the individuals are innocent, the states can (perhaps: could) be held accountable.

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

I'm not sure if I can follow your line of reasoning here.

Anyway, it's not out of any concern for Irving's individual rights that I very reluctantly agree that he shouldn't be put to jail. If his rights were the only thing at stake, I'd sentence him to the lash.

I'm more concerned about the awkward position you manouver yourself in as a state when you start to jail people for what borders on the fine line between insults and slanderous lies. The former warrants a jail sentence. The latter, erm, too. But the little devil is smart enough to play the role of idiot convincingly.

A judge should allow a lot of leeway for idiocy when touching on freedom of expression. Everybody knows that whoever does research into WWII and manages to reach the conclusion that there was no organised mass murder of Jews is an imbecile. A judge however, can not be in the business of deciding what is correct history.

That this allows for a large area in which the anti-semite can freely defame Jews if only he presents his filth as history, is most unfortunate. And painful. But perhaps necessary for the greater good of a free society.

[Redleg]

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

Correct. I wonder how many will understand that comment?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder how many will understand that comment?

I'm still clueless.

[Ser Clegane]

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

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.

In this particular case Mr. Irving's freedom to make certain statements infringes on the human dignity of Holocaust victims.
That some countries (e.g., Germany, Austria) are particularly harsh in this context is justified by the fact that any slander coming from these countries can certainly be seen as a more serious violation of the victims' dignity.

So accountability can infringe on the freedom of individuals - as it does in more than in this particular case (war reparations are another case)

[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.

[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

[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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

I suppose the Austrian (and other nations who ban holocaust denial) would argue that the holocaust is different from other atrocities because of its scale and its location. At least one camp (Mauthausen-Gusen) was in Austria and Jews (and others) from Austria were victims. In Austria, the holocaust is, therefore, different from say, Rwanda or Stalin's purges.

[A.Saturnus]

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".

I expected this would come. Personal insults are something else entirely. They are statements that refer directly to an individual, by that invoking the individual semantically. Therefore the personality rights of that individual apply. But Irving spoke AFAIK only indirectly about the victims, thus their personality rights do not apply.
As for racism, yes, generally it should be allowed (unless it involves discrimination, personal insult or incites violence).

But I may change may mind if you can either
1)show beyond the shadow of a doubt that Irving intended to offend holocaust victims and didn't say what he did for other political or scientifical reasons and that the offence was not just a side-effect he had to consider.

or

2)formulate a consistent rule that would allow to punish Irving and that doesn't refer to any historical event - and is therefore general in nature - without having possible undesirable consequences for science or political debate.

[A.Saturnus]

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.

That means Gyorgy Faludi is now 61, which is - argueably - well over 60. In as much as he can be considered a holocaust victim (yes, yes, malnutrition), he's no danger to my view on time and space. Any more problematic cases for me to think yet again?

[Ser Clegane]

I expected this would come. Personal insults are something else entirely. They are statements that refer directly to an individual, by that invoking the individual semantically.

I don't quite see the difference between an individual and a clearly defined group of individuals.
Weere does personal insult end in your opinion? A group of 2? 10? 100?

But I may change may mind if you can either
1)show beyond the shadow of a doubt that Irving intended to offend holocaust victims and didn't say what he did for other political or scientifical reasons and that the offence was not just a side-effect he had to consider.

or

2)formulate a consistent rule that would allow to punish Irving and that doesn't refer to any historical event - and is therefore general in nature - without having possible undesirable consequences for science or political debate.

As I, personally, do not consider either of the two to be a prerequisite for the law that has been applied in Irving's case, I don't think that this would be a particular useful exercise for me.

[Adrian II]

That means Gyorgy Faludi is now 61, which is - argueably - well over 60. In as much as he can be considered a holocaust victim (yes, yes, malnutrition), he's no danger to my view on time and space. Any more problematic cases for me to think yet again?

'Well' means 'to a considerable extent'. Faludi would be 'just over 60', not 'well over 60'.

And apart from 'yes, yes, malnutrition' he may have been victimised by his father's death, his mother's possibly traumatised condition and a host of other possible consequences. Something any yes, yes, professional psychologist would immediately understand.

[A.Saturnus]

I don't quite see the difference between an individual and a clearly defined group of individuals.
Weere does personal insult end in your opinion? A group of 2? 10? 100?

Personal insult isn't tied to a number. Obviously you can insult 20 million individuals as easily as one. But that isn't the point.

As I, personally, do not consider either of the two to be a prerequisite for the law that has been applied in Irving's case, I don't think that this would be a particular useful exercise for me.

It might be a useful exercise to convince others, since I, for one, do consider these to be prerequisite for such a law. At least, for a just law.

[Ser Clegane]

Personal insult isn't tied to a number. Obviously you can insult 20 million individuals as easily as one. But that isn't the point.

It is the point, as Irving insulted a defined group of individuals

It might be a useful exercise to convince others, since I, for one, do consider these to be prerequisite for such a law. At least, for a just law.

Then the meaningful discussion would be about why these should be prerequisites or not.
Why should I, e.g., provide proof for Irving's intentions if they are not subject of our disagreement in this issue? There is no reason to convince anybody based on arguments I do not consider to be relevant.

[A.Saturnus]

'Well' means 'to a considerable extent'. Faludi would be 'just over 60', not 'well over 60'.

Ahh, semantics. So "most living survivors are well over 60 years old" meant "except for those who are just over 60". Ok, I didn't know your definition for 'well'. Case closed.

And apart from 'yes, yes, malnutrition' he may have been victimised by his father's death, his mother's possibly traumatised condition and a host of other possible consequences.

Look, I'm really sorry for that guy, but just what are the boundaries for being a holocaust victim? Is everyone who`s father was murdered then a holocaust victim? How about grandfathers?

Something any yes, yes, professional psychologist would immediately understand.

A useful example, thank you. You see, Ser, while this can be considered an underhand slander and is likely to have been motivated to offend, I don't think it should be seen as personal insult.
Would I, on the other hand answer that my opponent knows a rat's dung about what a professional psychologist would understand, then that would probably be a personal insult.
So instead I say "Adrian, how do you feel about that?"

[Adrian II]

Look, I'm really sorry for that guy, but just what are the boundaries for being a holocaust victim? Is everyone who`s father was murdered then a holocaust victim? How about grandfathers?

Instead of just saying 'Oh, OK, I miscalculated' -- you have to go and make this huge show of indifference towards Holocaust victims. How silly can you get.

[hellenes]

Ι agree with the imprisonment.
If one nation wins the war it should annhiliate and destroy even the memory of its oponnents.
Any supporting voices of the losers must be shut and imprisoned.
Mass media brainwashing should be carried out with huge doses of guilt implated in the psychic of the losers' decendants.
All this should be culminated with the creation of a global state that winners will govern a grey mass of subjects who will lack any idea of identity, history or belief.
And only then the established order will be secure from the mistakes and omissions of the past.

Hellenes

[AntiochusIII]

He should not be punished but his arguments torn apart. Freedom of Speech requires one to endure such falsehoods. The line should always be at inciting violence and no closer than that. Holocaust charities can, of course, sue him, and I would encourage them to.

But the situation with Holocaust laws in Europe is unique; it is, as someone stated earlier, an attempt to rectify past crimes by repentant Europeans, and I think it had its use during the earliest period of reconstruction, when Nazism still refused to die. But now, it is an irrelevant law that needs removal to prevent conflict of principles.

I think I'm an advocate of expiration date for laws...

[KafirChobee]

A lie of any proportion, remains a lie. Denial of historical fact is simply reorganizing facts to match the premise one would like to believe in . It implies ignorance, while propending an unseen knowledge most simply do not comprehend. [sound familiar?]

Realize, the Turks are still in denial for what they did to the Armenians. Everyone knows it is a fact (1 1/2 - 2 1/2 million died, depending on which stats one prefers - fact remains ... over a million perished), but the Turks still deny it after nearly a hundred years . Understand the reasons for the denials, and one begins to grasp the political reasons for attempting to create myths - illusions. As in the world today.
It is better that the world ignore the present holocaust in the Sudan than react to it - AFTER ALL IT'S JUST BLACKS BEING SLAUGHTERED BY ARABS (were they WASPs, imagine the numbers of Marines tossed in there by GB alone?). It is something all the Western nations are very good at - ignoring genecide, ignoring poverty, and ignoring the mores of ethnics not of the appropriate race ... it just is, always has been .... and will not change in our life times (because it is easier to ignore the problems that create genecidal situations than solve them....so why bother....might cost something we can give to, er .. say an oil company? Or, maybe it will benefit our religion ... some how - after all the Pope supported Hitler in WWII - past and present).

My point (and I do have one, honest), is that David Irving is irrelevant - his prattelling montra of an imaginary history has as much meaning as Howdy Doody does on todays youths. Howdy maybe remembered by some, but his ideals and hatreds are long forgotten ( ). So soon will Mr. Irving's. Unfortunately, our nations will still mask the problem people like Irving create by blaming the irvings' rather than coping with the racial, ethnic, religious, common mores of a society, or the resistance to compromize by various groups in the worlds' society.

Thing is, until all of mankind becomes 'mankind' - genocide will become the norm. Not a horrendous deed committed by lunatics. It seems to be as acceptable today as it was in 1939 - so why change? Why bother with the ideas or ideals of some weakminded frop like Irving? To show we actually somehow care? Sure! that's the ticket.

[Bartix]

Obviously you can insult 20 million individuals as easily as one.

This is not obvious to me!
It is more easier today, because you can write a blog

[Narayanese]

Poor guy, getting jailed for simply presenting his research.

[A.Saturnus]

Instead of just saying 'Oh, OK, I miscalculated' -- you have to go and make this huge show of indifference towards Holocaust victims. How silly can you get.

---

edit: ahh, scrap it. Neither you nor me should be subject of this thread. I didn't intend to start this sideline discussion anyway and that's not the place for a wittiness contest. Thus, whatever...

[hellenes]

Poor guy, getting jailed for simply presenting his research.

Its called:
SELECTIVE DEMOCRACY.

Hellenes