Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

"Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  
  
  
  Anyone inclined to rush to Irving's defence should first read Richard J Evans' book "Telling lies about Hitler" which tells the story of the trial that exposed him as a holocaust denier:
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  While there are obvious reasons why Austria has this law, it does however seem a bit extreme to lock someone up for their historical assessment. Would it not be better to challenge what he says to expose bad methodology etc.? Ironic really that he was the first one to point out that the Hitler diaries were fakes - on the basis of historical evidence.
  
  Certainly the 2000 libel trial largely did for him, so why give more publicity to his views as they will be the central issue of the court hearing? I wonder if the Austrians would be in some difficulty under Human Rights law, since the offence (the warrant dates from 1989) is to deny the Holocaust. Were he able to "prove" his views, he would still be guilty of the offence. It was perhaps a bad move to say he was going to Vienna on his website!

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  I agree, Dave. It seems the Austrians and Germans have great difficulty in living down the crimes of their parents. This law does seem a bit extreme. I say allow him the freedom to say what he wants and thereby prove what a bigot he is.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  Well, he was the first to point out the Hitler diairies forgery - which was more than Hugh Trevor Roper managed.
  
  I wonder where you would draw the line in silencing people for their view of history? I wonder for example whether you would (like many others) seek to silence those, who investigate the data and simply reach conclusions, which do not fit with the official version or come up with for example Jews and Prescott Bush backing Hitler? It smacks of the very Nazism (including book burning) that you claim to oppose.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  Lord Greville Janner and Deborah Lipstadt who both oversaw the case against him and were sued for libel respectively are both Jewish (though unsuccessful in the 2nd instance)
  
  He has been accused of being a "Holocaust Denier"
  
  "He was arrested by Police acting on an Arrest Warrant from 1989 - under Austrian law, active Holocaust denying is a criminal offence"
  
  "Irving’s writing: overstatement of putative wrongs done to Nazi-era Germany, while understating wrongs done by Nazi Germany."
  
  To be honest... I am quite taken aback by it all. I am no "Nazi sympathizer". I have done enough reading for my degree to realise the scale of the atrocities. I also understand the scale of the Allied ones too. I also realise, and hope others do too, that history is written by the "victors" and this can be proven in many areas whether it be the Chinese Cultural Revolution or the holocaust in this case. If Germany had have won the war we can put forward an argument to say that people claiming the holocaust happened would be subject to the same censorship (and worse punishments no doubt) if they claimed the holocaust did happen.
  
  So what I propose is this. David Irving is a historian with his own agenda with his links to neo-Nazi groups. Lord Janner and Deborah Lipstadt are both Jewish and are on councils fighting for Jewish "compensation" for the holocaust crimes. They both have their own agendas for influencing the history of the earlier part of the century. Why not just let them propose their facts in a fair and just way and debate the points? This is what historians do in all fairness. Irving has proposed a "theory". What has happened is that he has been the victim of a witchunt to denounce his work. That doesn't sound like the democratic world we are supposed to be living in.
  
  Now I know the holocaust has happened based on the evidence I have seen from both sides of the argument. But as a historian myself I have a duty to consider all of the sources and come to my own decision. Who cares if he has an opinion... prove him wrong... not demonise him!!!

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Thursday, 17th November 2005

  Well, he was the first to point out the Hitler diairies forgery - which was more than Hugh Trevor Roper managed.
  
  I wonder where you would draw the line in silencing people for their view of history? I wonder for example whether you would (like many others) seek to silence those, who investigate the data and simply reach conclusions, which do not fit with the official version or come up with for example Jews and Prescott Bush backing Hitler? It smacks of the very Nazism (including book burning) that you claim to oppose. Μύ
  
  We are not talking about some eccentric academic in a uni dept interpreting differering views and evidence on a certain theme in history. He is not an academic; he is not a 'trained' historian - he writes 'historical' propaganda to defend and promote fascist ideology. He is a racist, an anti-semite. He was big chums with some of the master race who slipped through the net of Nuremburg. He is involved with neo-nazis in Europe and is breaking the law in democratic countries. Do you want to defend Nazis and give them a platform to spout their filth and hatred?
  
  I understand your point about free speech etc. However, sometimes this has to be weighed up with the problems it will cause to others. Incitement to racial hatred is generally held up to be a reason for limiting these rights - or do you think that free speech should be allowed whatever the consequences to others.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  I definitely agree with the " being placed around "historian", when referring to Irving.
  
  How he can call himself a historian, while denying the overwhelming evidence is beyond belief IMO. I would not go so far as to say the man deserves to be arrested, but he is well and truly deserving of public ridicule. For a historian to say that the holocaust didn't happen is just like a geologist trying to say that the world is 6000 years old, and was created in 6 days. Utter denial of a massive mountain of facts.
  
  DL

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  Somehow I get that feeling that this arrest is nothing else but some window dressing on behalf of Austria.
  
  Austria and the Austrian people of the war time era have got a lot to account for.
  
  Austrians were said to be more fanatic Nazi sympatisers that the Germans.
  
  The Austrians serving in the German army and especially those of the Waffen SS were nothing else but a bunch of murderous criminals.
  
  Even now there are still many Austrian ex members of the Waffen SS who are living in Austria but should have been executed after WW2.
  Yet they are very proud, and are basking in the glory, of having served in the SS.
  
  Do not see to much in the fact that Austria has arrested David Irving. It is only a matter of saving face.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  People caliming to be "historians" or "experts" often ignore a mountain of facts, twist what there is, ignore what doesn't suit etc. Graham hancock and those clowns in Holy Blood/Holy Grail did the same thing - and the latter finished up making some pretty distateful claims about Christianity, which would probably noty have been "allowed" had they been made against Islam or Judaism.
  
  I don't know much about Irving, but if he commits offences , which fall under inciting racial hatred etc. fine, prosecute him for it (the incitement to violence against others should be the only limitation on free speech). What is the point of makinga criminal offence of denying a historical event? Suppsoe Bush were to pass a law saying that denying the US was involved in war on terror was an offence - would you back that? He has killed many more people than Irving has.
  
  I remember watching a prog years ago, where Irving produced a guard at Hitler's HQ, who testified that the death camps were not discussed there. Timewatch led by Laurence Rees (I think he is Jewish) ran te series on the Nazis in which they talked about Hitler's approach being so vague that all his minions did what they liked "to fulfil the will of the Fuhrer". As I understand it, Hitler just said "oh get rid of them" and Heydrich etc. worked out the details. It raises interesting questions about responsibility for the detail - as Hitler is responsible for setting the policy and at the very ;least, not establishing hwo it was carried out, why then are Dubya and Rumsfeld not responsible for Abu Greib (for which two soldiers have ben the only ones prosecuted). As the NAzis were prosecuted at Nuremburg for aggresive war and preemptove self-defence was struck down by the Nuremburg Courts, why aren't Bush and Blair on trial for the same crimes?
  
  These are important questions and whatever you might think about Irving, he has unearthed historical evidence - and as I said, he was the one, who pointed out the forgery of the diaries first. Plenty of rubbish is written about history by people with agendas - they might call themselves "historians" - but we deal with it by p[roducing our own evidence and challenging the interpretation, not demanding that they are banged up and their books burned.
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  
  I remember watching a prog years ago, where Irving produced a guard at Hitler's HQ, who testified that the death camps were not discussed there. Μύ
  
  Er, well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
  
  
  As I understand it, Hitler just said "oh get rid of them" and Heydrich etc. worked out the details. Μύ
  
  Poor old, Adolf. How we have misunderstood him. Turns out he was all heart really. With the way things are at the Vatican, perhaps we could be looking at St Adolf before long.
  
  Are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or are you really trying to deny the Third Reich's responsibility for the Holocaust?
  
  As for all your remarks about Bush, Blair et al don't you think you are getting things out of all proportion? I am against the war in Iraq and the human rights abuses by British and US forces, but to compare them to the Nazi death camps and the mass genocide of Jews, eastern Europeans, gays etc?
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  <quote user='gwentydd' userid='1380901'><quote user='DaveMBA' userid='1360771'>
  I remember watching a prog years ago, where Irving produced a guard at Hitler's HQ, who testified that the death camps were not discussed there. </quote>
  
  Er, well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
  
  <quote> Well of course... he was using a source. Whether it is credible or not is for you to decide but is nonetheless a source </quote>
  
  <quote user='DaveMBA' userid='1360771'>
  As I understand it, Hitler just said "oh get rid of them" and Heydrich etc. worked out the details. </quote>
  
  Poor old, Adolf. How we have misunderstood him. Turns out he was all heart really. With the way things are at the Vatican, perhaps we could be looking at St Adolf before long.
  
  Are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or are you really trying to deny the Third Reich's responsibility for the Holocaust?
  
  As for all your remarks about Bush, Blair et al don't you think you are getting things out of all proportion? I am against the war in Iraq and the human rights abuses by British and US forces, but to compare them to the Nazi death camps and the mass genocide of Jews, eastern Europeans, gays etc?
  
  </quote>
  
  <quote> I think it is you who being a little silly here turning what is a perfectly valid academic statement into something petty. No one is relinquishing Hitler of the responsibility but how do you personally know that all of these atrocities have taken place? Read it in a book? How many books? How many programmes have you watched? You must be very gullible indeed if you have taken all of the propoganda on face value.
  
  As for you saying that the Iraq situation is incomparable; how many deaths does it take for it not to be right? How many deaths until we can start comparing?
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  
  I think it is you who being a little silly here turning what is a perfectly valid academic statement into something petty. No one is relinquishing Hitler of the responsibility but how do you personally know that all of these atrocities have taken place? Read it in a book? How many books? How many programmes have you watched? You must be very gullible indeed if you have taken all of the propoganda on face value.
  
  As for you saying that the Iraq situation is incomparable; how many deaths does it take for it not to be right? How many deaths until we can start comparing?
  
  Μύ
  
  
  
  Irving is the one playing the numbers game. Not even he is denying that people were murdered in the camps, but that there weren't as many deaths than has been made out. Obviously, even one death is one too many.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  
  
  Perhaps archaeology would be a better way to examine all this.
  
  
  Howevr, I have to say how very surprised I am at the number of people who are prepared to defend Irving's views (and I don't mean his right to say them).
  I think I'll leave it there.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Friday, 18th November 2005

  You are suprised that people look at all of the evidence and come up with their own conclusion... yes I find that mystifying too
  
  
  
  Perhaps archaeology would be a better way to examine all this.
  
  
  Howevr, I have to say how very surprised I am at the number of people who are prepared to defend Irving's views (and I don't mean his right to say them).
  I think I'll leave it there.Μύ

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 19th November 2005

  Isn't it interesting that the slightest suggestion of a bit of evidence and analysis of it leads to the suggestion that people are defending one view - but no doubt this would include Mr Rees and the Timewatch team, given what they said! Evidence must also be in the positive - the popular image may well be that Adolf did he detail, but what Timewatch and this guard both say is that he just set policy. Listen for that being sued as a defence by Ministers today when things go wrong - not me guv, just some employee.
  
  I notice an equally sinister statement here: "Irving is the one playing the numbers game. Not even he is denying that people were murdered in the camps, but that there weren't as many deaths than has been made out." Now, is that denial? Obviously "it did not happen" is denial, but is disputing the numbers a crime? There are many people, who for all kinds of reasons dispute the numbers - indeed, if you hear the popualr wisdom, you might think 6m Jews died in the camps and that was it. Well, I gather it is about 4.5m in the camps and the rest in execution squads etc., plus an equal number of gays, Communists, Slavs etc.
  
  Indeed, consider one of the groups affected - the gypsies - and the recent vilification of these same people by our tabloid press. Is it okay to pick on some groups and not others? 100K Iraqis don't seem to matter on some radars.
  
  This all raises some very interesting questions about historical evidence and modern attitudes. In the same way as the PC lobby try to shout down anyone, who wishes to discuss race/immigration issues, so it seems others are trying to shout down those discussing historical method as "Nazis". Of course, in both cases, it saves making a rational argument in response.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Saturday, 19th November 2005

  In response to DaveMBA...
  
  Have to agree with everything and I can't really add any more to be fair
  
  What I will say is that the modern attitudes today seem very touchy and too concerned with applying todays rights and sensitivities with events that happened in the past. I am sorry but you just cannot do that. Look at historical events for what they were and consider all evidence because there was a lot of propoganda flying about post wars 1 + 2. Sentiment and nationalism has given us some very suspect evidence about the Nazi regime

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Monday, 21st November 2005

  People caliming to be "historians" or "experts" often ignore a mountain of facts, twist what there is, ignore what doesn't suit etc. Graham hancock and those clowns in Holy Blood/Holy Grail did the same thing - and the latter finished up making some pretty distateful claims about Christianity, which would probably noty have been "allowed" had they been made against Islam or Judaism.
  
  I don't know much about Irving, but if he commits offences , which fall under inciting racial hatred etc. fine, prosecute him for it (the incitement to violence against others should be the only limitation on free speech). What is the point of makinga criminal offence of denying a historical event? Suppsoe Bush were to pass a law saying that denying the US was involved in war on terror was an offence - would you back that? He has killed many more people than Irving has.
  
  I remember watching a prog years ago, where Irving produced a guard at Hitler's HQ, who testified that the death camps were not discussed there. Timewatch led by Laurence Rees (I think he is Jewish) ran te series on the Nazis in which they talked about Hitler's approach being so vague that all his minions did what they liked "to fulfil the will of the Fuhrer". As I understand it, Hitler just said "oh get rid of them" and Heydrich etc. worked out the details. It raises interesting questions about responsibility for the detail - as Hitler is responsible for setting the policy and at the very ;least, not establishing hwo it was carried out, why then are Dubya and Rumsfeld not responsible for Abu Greib (for which two soldiers have ben the only ones prosecuted). As the NAzis were prosecuted at Nuremburg for aggresive war and preemptove self-defence was struck down by the Nuremburg Courts, why aren't Bush and Blair on trial for the same crimes?
  
  These are important questions and whatever you might think about Irving, he has unearthed historical evidence - and as I said, he was the one, who pointed out the forgery of the diaries first. Plenty of rubbish is written about history by people with agendas - they might call themselves "historians" - but we deal with it by p[roducing our own evidence and challenging the interpretation, not demanding that they are banged up and their books burned.
  
  Μύ
  
  Dave MBA, Irving did expose the Hitler diaries as a forgery but you only know (or wish to acknowledge) half the story. Irving came into contact with the diaries through August Priesack, an old nazi who had been one of the first to be approached by the forger in his quest for authentication. Irving had purchased some documents from the same forger and had been on the verge of selling them to a publisher when he began to have doubts. Priesack's collection of nazi memorabelia was full of obvious forgeries. this made it highely likely that the diaries were also fake. He was shortly proved right by scientific tests. Irving has since portrayed his role in this affair as evidence of his expertise on the original source material for Hitler and the 3rd reich. Thus whilst eminent academics (i.e Hugh trevor-roper) had authenticated them he proved his superior knowledge of the original documents by recognizing them as fakes. One of the reasons why the forgery got so far was in fact because eminent academics had not got near the diaries. Those who had such as Eberhard Jackel or Gerhard Weinberg had grave suspicions from the very start. Even Trevor-Roper had changed his mind about the diaries immediately after authenticating them. Moreover, what Irving conveniently forgot to mention subsequently is that a few days after the launch of the diaries at a press conference, he changed his mind. This may have something to do with the fact that Irving had finally seen the diaries and had found that they contained no evidence to suggest that Hitler knew anything about the holocaust. Indeed the diaries showed Hitler in a positive light all the way through. On point after point the diaries seemed to endorse Irvings view of Hitler.
  Irving then appeared on the front page of the Times declaring the diaries to be genuine. When forensic tests soon showed they were definite forgeries Irving issued a statement accepting the findings but drawing attention to the fact that he had been the first to unmask them as forged. 'Yes' said a reporter from the Times on hearing this 'and the last person to declare them authentic'.
  
  I also find it very confusing that certain people are holding Irving up to be some martyr to freedom of speech. Would this be the same David Irving who took Deborah Lipstadt to court because he wanted her to withdraw her book in which she had labelled him a "Holocaust denier". At no point has Lipstadt (or anyone else) asked for any of Irving's (immensly shoddy) work to be withdrawn.
  
  Of course it is valid to debate numbers when it comes to the Holocaust. However, numbers are not the only game that Irving plays. Not only does he claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed (not by gas but through overwork, exposure etc) but that no systematic plan for the destruction of the Jews was ever in place. This is utter nonsense, akin to claiming that the world is flat. If you claim to be intersted in history in any way then you must understand that judgements can only be based on evidence. We have a huge amount of material available showing that Jews were killed by shooting, gas and overwork in their millions. I include in this the testimonies of Eichmann, Hoss, Stangl, the Wansee protocol, blueprints as well as the testimonies of survivors. Irving is a anti-semite, a liar and is not a historian.
  
  You really should read Richard J Evans "Telling lies about Hitler" which is all about the wonderful Mr Irving.
  
  p.s. I don't actually agree with the stance in Austria and Germany in banning holocaust denial. If these lunatics are allowed to spout their nonsense they are setting themselves up for a fall as their arguments will quickly be shown up as ludicrous.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 21st November 2005

  It is those, who seek to put him on trial, who will both give him the oxygen of publicity and make him a martyr for free speech. That is precisely the point that is being made. I don't indeed know that much about it, although I have leanrned on here that seems to be a widespread acceptance that he does not in fact deny hte Holocaust, but disputes material information surrounding it - I am afraid that jury verdicts prove nothing since they are often the outcomes of emotion in cases such as this. Given this widespread acceptance, it seems that jury may well have been wrong, and an Austrian trial will face the same problem - what is "denial"? If he disputes elements of it, that is not denial as most people would understand it. So, the Austrian court would howveer be under great pressure to convict him anyway, which makes him even more of a martyr - or alternatively, should it find he is not involved in denial, it will face claims that Austria still have fascist/anti-semitic tendencies. Then we might have a rerun of Tony's moral high horse in relation to Haider - what became of the sanctions there we might ask?
  For what really?
  
  It would have been far better after the 2000 trial just to let it drop. As for the original libel - given the emotions surrounding the Holocaust, it would indeed be libellous to call him a Holocaust denier if he were not. His error was to think that a jury would agree with him.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 19.

  Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005

  It is those, who seek to put him on trial, who will both give him the oxygen of publicity and make him a martyr for free speech. That is precisely the point that is being made. I don't indeed know that much about it, although I have leanrned on here that seems to be a widespread acceptance that he does not in fact deny hte Holocaust, but disputes material information surrounding it - I am afraid that jury verdicts prove nothing since they are often the outcomes of emotion in cases such as this. Given this widespread acceptance, it seems that jury may well have been wrong, and an Austrian trial will face the same problem - what is "denial"? If he disputes elements of it, that is not denial as most people would understand it. So, the Austrian court would howveer be under great pressure to convict him anyway, which makes him even more of a martyr - or alternatively, should it find he is not involved in denial, it will face claims that Austria still have fascist/anti-semitic tendencies. Then we might have a rerun of Tony's moral high horse in relation to Haider - what became of the sanctions there we might ask?
  For what really?
  
  It would have been far better after the 2000 trial just to let it drop. As for the original libel - given the emotions surrounding the Holocaust, it would indeed be libellous to call him a Holocaust denier if he were not. His error was to think that a jury would agree with him. Μύ
  
  
  Er...DaveMBA the 2000 Irving trial didn't take place before a jury but was judged solely by a highly trained and experienced Judge, precisely because it was felt that the case was too complex for a jury to fully grasp. He didnt lose his case because of the "emotive" nature of the case but because he was comprehensively defeated by the arguments of the Defence's expert witnesses (Richard Evansm Jan De Pelt etc). You can get a full and balanced account of the trial in D.D. Guttenplan's "The Holocaust on Trial" which is the most comprehensive book on the subject.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 20.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005

  Interesting - si it will be the same in Austria. Somehow I suspect the likelihood of a decision on the facts to be about as likely - given the uproar that a finding in Irving's favour would get, whatever the facts behind it. It seems unlikely to me that you can be a denier if you merely seek to dispute the numbers, methods. Much of course depends on the way in which the Austrian law is framed, but I think the result is predictable, given sensibilities out there. The justification will no doubt be the 2000 decision, so that does rather show it would have been wiser to leave it at that.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message21

• Message 22

  , in reply to message 21.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005

  It might also be worth adding something about the nature of libel. Contrary to popular belief, it is not making incorrect statements - it is necessary for that statement (which can actually be selectively true in some cases) to damage that person's standing among his peer group - in Irving's case that is probably serious students of WW2. Consequently, the judge made a finding on whather Irving was damaged by the claims, not directly on whether they were true or not (although that has somerelevance). Given that his peer group consdier him a Nazi and at the very elast, an apologist for the Nazis, it is difficult to see how the allegations might damage him - and the judge was right (although in my former incarnation as a lawyer, I have sat through plenty of daft decisons). This is perhaps nopt how it has been reported and many people now know that they can make the allegation with impunity.
  
  If you want to consider two cases - look at Matthew Kelly and Gary Glitter. In Kelly's case, the allegations of interference with kids were false anyway, but were potentially extremely damaging to a popular performer. In Glitter's case, if we assume the current claims are false, then they are still unlikely to be libellous, given his conviction for child porn offences.
  
  While it depends on how the Austrian law is framed and no doubt, the 2000 decision will be akey plank of the conviction, the question is different and is simply one of fact - did he deny the Holocaust (however that is defined)? The danger there is that should the "denial" be tightly framed as most people understand the word, then from what has been said here, his defence will actually be that he disputes the detail, not that it happened. Nevertheless, things being what they are ("judge favours Nazi apologist" being a possible headline), conviction is very likely anyway. It does however give him a platform to espourse his views and indeed, the European Human Rights Convention has specific provisions about free spech, which may override the Austrian law.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message22

• Message 23

  , in reply to message 22.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005

  Looks like the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ legal correspondent agrees with us!
  
  "Despite the mortal blow to his reputation in 2000, he remains a showman and may well relish the opportunity to grandstand before a wider audience if put on trial, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ legal affairs analyst Jon Silverman says.
  In his books, Mr Irving has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated.
  He has also claimed that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust."
  
  There is exaggeration and there is denial. However, it seems he did deny the existence of a concentration camp at Auschwitz, so much will depend on exactly how the Austrian law is framed.
  
  However, in the end, we are left with the same question - should the advocacy/disputing of a particular historical viewpoint be the subject of criminal proceeedings? It does in itself smack of the suppression of free speech and the view that only one view is valid.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message23

• Message 24

  , in reply to message 23.

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005

  Well he has broken Austrian law - in fact there's been a warrant out for his arrest since 1989. So whatever the political side effects may be I don't think anyone can complain if he ends up in court
  
  (of course some people will call him a martyr but then they'd probably say that if he'd got a parking ticket)
  
  

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message24

• Message 25

  , in reply to message 24.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 24th November 2005

  I think you are jumping the gun - there is a claim that he has broken Austrian law as he has not yet been convicted. Much depends on how the law is framed and on the evidence, which is presented. Hence the problem with defining "denial". Sicne the warrant was issued, Austria has introduced the ECHR into its law with the provisions about free speech and prescriptive justice. It is not as simple as many think - and as Silverman notes, just gives him another platform.

  Link to this forum: "Historian" David Irving arrested in Austria

  Report message25

Back to top