NationStates Jolt Archive


Denier of Holocaust charged

Zilam
21-02-2006, 18:50
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395445502&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Right-wing British historian David Irving was convicted in Austria on Monday of denying the Holocaust - a crime in this country once run by the Nazis - and sentenced to three years in prison.

Irving, who had pleaded guilty and insisted during his one-day trial that he had had a change of heart and now acknowledged the Nazis' World War II slaughter of 6 million Jews, had faced up to 10 years behind bars for the offense. Before the verdict, Irving conceded he had erred in contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Irving's lawyer immediately announced an appeal against the sentence.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving testified, at one point expressing sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."

Irving, 67, has been in custody since his arrest in November on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews.

Earlier Monday, he told journalists he considered it "ridiculous" that he was standing trial for remarks made 17 years ago.

Handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, he arrived at court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books - "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

Irving's trial was held amid new - and fierce - debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.

Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said last month the controversial Third Reich historian was getting up to 300 pieces of fan mail a week from supporters around the world, and that while in detention he was writing his memoirs under the working title "Irving's War."

Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in the southern Austrian province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989. He was charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

Irving had tried to win his provisional release on $24,000 bail, but a Vienna court refused, saying it considered him a flight risk.

Within two weeks of his arrest, he asserted through his lawyer that he had come to acknowledge the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers.

In the past, however, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish population on such a massive scale.

Irving, the author of nearly 30 books, has contended most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.

In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court, but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist."


Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.

In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of US$6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.

So what do you think? I don't think there should laws about concerning that. I agree that it is raunchy to make such remarks, but I still think Freedom of Speech should rule the lands.
Argesia
21-02-2006, 18:50
Isn't this the 146th thread on this topic?
Imperiux
21-02-2006, 18:51
Thread on this already. Explore the forum before you post. It saves a lot of space, time and energy.
Bel-Da-Raptora
21-02-2006, 19:00
I think it’s ludicrous. Nothing is so important that it shouldn’t be questioned, especially out history. I myself have always found the holocaust, as an act of incredible evil was two black and white for the real world. It ultimately justifies the Second World War, and makes the Nazis wrong and bad and the alliance good and heroic. Such polarisation occurs so rarely in history; there is always some blame to be had on both sides usually, that it simply makes it a suspicious event.
The Black Forrest
21-02-2006, 19:05
Ah yet another thread.

Guess Dave should know the laws of the land if he was going to spout of his inane babel....
Ralphthedog
21-02-2006, 19:15
The complicity comes in the form that Germany tried to "give away" their Jews before determining that no one else wanted them and thereby "resorted" to their final solution.
Santa Barbara
21-02-2006, 19:17
Isn't this the 146th thread on this topic?

Yes, and this just goes to show what a successful marketing ploy this was. I mean sure, he gets prison time - but think of how many people who never heard of David Irving now have, and will go out and buy his books? A lot! It's brilliant, gutsy and effective of him.
Tweedlesburg
21-02-2006, 19:19
The complicity comes in the form that Germany tried to "give away" their Jews before determining that no one else wanted them and thereby "resorted" to their final solution.
Would you care to expand on that?
5iam
21-02-2006, 19:19
I think it’s ludicrous. Nothing is so important that it shouldn’t be questioned, especially out history. I myself have always found the holocaust, as an act of incredible evil was two black and white for the real world. It ultimately justifies the Second World War, and makes the Nazis wrong and bad and the alliance good and heroic. Such polarisation occurs so rarely in history; there is always some blame to be had on both sides usually, that it simply makes it a suspicious event.
I think there are some things that are entirely the evil dictators fault, and are indeed black and white.

See: Stalin, PolPot, Hitler.
Zilam
21-02-2006, 19:23
My bad..I guess i should check out all 6 pages next time before making a thread.
Adriatica II
21-02-2006, 19:49
So what do you think? I don't think there should laws about concerning that. I agree that it is raunchy to make such remarks, but I still think Freedom of Speech should rule the lands.

Its just like slander and libel. If it can be considered to be attempting to put forward something to be considered fact, and it can be proven to be untrue then it is libelous/slanderous.
Kzord
21-02-2006, 19:52
I don't think they should make an opinion illegal. I'd also say that (while I believe that the Holocaust did happen), whether or not it happened doesn't affect whether or not it is a bad thing.
Grave_n_idle
21-02-2006, 19:59
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395445502&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



So what do you think? I don't think there should laws about concerning that. I agree that it is raunchy to make such remarks, but I still think Freedom of Speech should rule the lands.

This guy claims to believe that the Holocaust never happened.

I have seriously talked to people who HONESTLY claim to believe that the world was literally made in 6 days.

The way I figure it, if one group of people are allowed to spout nonsense without support, ANYONE should be.