http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1964838,00.html
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday December 6, 2006
The Guardian
Iran announced yesterday details of a conference questioning whether the Holocaust really happened, prompted by an international outcry a year ago when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis as "myth" fabricated to justify Israel.
The foreign ministry said "intellectuals and researchers" from 30 countries - including Britain - would attend Studying the Holocaust: An international view, in Tehran on Monday and Tuesday.
Participants will consider documentary, pictorial, physical and demographic evidence in what Iranian officials depict as an academic investigation to establish the Holocaust's authenticity and whether the reported number of victims was exaggerated. Organisers say it will include submissions for and against. It will also focus on the plight of the Palestinians.
The conference will have six panel discussions and an open forum. It will discuss the capacity of Nazi death camps and the impact of the second world war on other national and ethnic groups. Iranian officials say Jewish suffering is played up at the expense of other victims. Manouchehr Mohammadi, the foreign ministry's research and education officer, said the conference was intended as a platform for open discussion of the Holocaust, which Iran claims is denied in the west.
"Our aim is to scientifically study the Holocaust and listen to both sides before reaching a conclusion," Mr Mohammadi said. "This issue has a crucial role regarding the west's policies towards the countries of the Middle East, especially the Palestinians. Iran isn't against or for. We weren't involved in this event so we can be a neutral judge. It is important for us to know the answer so that we can process our stances to issues in this region. If we conclude that the Holocaust happened, we will admit it but we are still going to ask why Palestinians have to pay." He said it would not be a forum for anti-semites or neo-Nazis, and rabbis would attend. "Our policy doesn't mean we want to defend the crimes of Hitler."
Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has said its inhabitants should go to Europe or Alaska.
Michael Rosen, of the Community Security Trust, which works to safeguard Jews in Britain, said he was aware of the event but that it was not clear who was planning to attend from the UK. Karen Pollock, of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "To hold a state-sponsored conference questioning the truth of the Holocaust is not only deeply disturbing but a huge insult to Holocaust survivors and the families of Holocaust victims."
There was a good letter in the Guardian about this conference from Michael Darlow:
The news that Iran is to go ahead with a conference that will supposedly investigate whether the Holocaust actually happened (Britons to attend Iran's Holocaust conference, December 6) is deeply shocking. Thirty years ago when I was working on the Holocaust episode of the ITV series The World At War, my colleagues and I deliberately decided not to stop when we had gathered the first-hand witness evidence we needed for making the programme, but to gather more and put it together to be kept for posterity for use against the day when people or states claiming intellectual respectability might try to claim that the Holocaust did not happen. Sadly, it seems that day may now have arrived. We did not only collect the evidence of those who were victims in Hitler's Final Solution, but from people who held senior positions in its planning, administration and execution. All this material is stored in the Imperial War Museum, is available and will, I hope, now be used to show that those who would now deny the Holocaust happened are wrong.
No one denies that the Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust or that hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, slavs, homosexuals and others who the Nazis deemed unworthy also perished. To quibble about the precise number of Jews who died is idle and often, as we have seen in the past, the opening gambit of those who would seek to go on to deny that the Holocaust happened at all. No one knows the precise number who died. Whether it was exactly six million, somewhat more, or rather less is irrelevant to the moral enormity of what happened. One of our witnesses recalls that at the end of the war, when Himmler was told that six million Jews had been killed, his only comment was "Is that all?".
To accept the truth of the Holocaust is not to deny the appalling injustice of what has been done to the Palestinians, nor to support the policies of modern Israel, right or wrong. But to deny or minimise the truth of the Holocaust as a means of attacking or undermining Israel is both immoral and dishonest.
Full Version: Holocaust Denial
One would wonder whether David Irving will attend.
John
John
QUOTE (John Geraghty @ Dec 7 2006, 07:37 PM) 
One would wonder whether David Irving will attend.
John
John
I believe he is still in jail in Austria.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Dec 7 2006, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (John Geraghty @ Dec 7 2006, 07:37 PM)
One would wonder whether David Irving will attend.
John
I believe he is still in jail in Austria.
Irving was released from jail today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm
John
I am glad to see that David Irving is finally back in Britain, a free man.
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
QUOTE
When lies are dragged into the light, common sense can usually see them for what they are. I defy any sensible person to read Mein Kampf and not immediately recognise it as semi-literate, barbaric and illogical. Hitler’s manifesto has lost its emotive power precisely because we can buy it openly, read it freely, and reject it utterly.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 02:24 AM)
I am glad to see that David Irving is finally back in Britain, a free man.
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
QUOTE
When lies are dragged into the light, common sense can usually see them for what they are. I defy any sensible person to read Mein Kampf and not immediately recognise it as semi-literate, barbaric and illogical. Hitler’s manifesto has lost its emotive power precisely because we can buy it openly, read it freely, and reject it utterly.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
This is the usual sick obsessive nonsense from Sid Walker. To claim that the "work" of Irving, Faurisson, Leuchter (or any of the other vile anti semites he often pleads an impartial hearing for) amounts to anything more than billious illogical racism makes me deeply concerned for Sid's own mental health and well being.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 02:24 AM)
I am glad to see that David Irving is finally back in Britain, a free man.
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
His year-long incarceration was a shameful episode in modern European history - an epsode that is not yet over, because the Kafkaesque and anti-rational laws that criminalize unorthodox historical views remain on the statute book in numerous European countries - and many people remain in jail as a consequence.
Now observe the chattering, conformist armchair critics move into hyperdrive. With only views such as theirs permitted expression in the western mas media, it's relatively easy to sell hate-soaked inversions of the truth to the credulous.
Here's one particularly noxious example of today's crop, courtesy of Google News search.
Ben Macintyre, writing in Murdoch's Times of London (the rag that regularly supports illegal wars against Israel's perceived enemies) proclaims: 'Let the Holocaust deniers speak out - David Irving's repulsive views should be heard'!
QUOTE
When lies are dragged into the light, common sense can usually see them for what they are. I defy any sensible person to read Mein Kampf and not immediately recognise it as semi-literate, barbaric and illogical. Hitler’s manifesto has lost its emotive power precisely because we can buy it openly, read it freely, and reject it utterly.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.
I presume Mr Macintyre knows what an absurdity that is?
Historical revisionists have been trying to join proponents of the Holocaust in real and meaningful debate from the outset. But real and meaningful debate has never suited Holocaust promoters. They have never (to date) agreed to have their case scrutinized in the public view by critical scholars.
Here's a simple test, for starters, to see whether the Times has really turned over a new leaf and now truly supports open discussion on this topic - so what it alleges to be the 'lies' of revisionsists may be overcome by force of argument, not the jailer's key.
Will this war-promoting, spook-infested rag provide Irving with a full right of reply to Macintyre's graceless opinion piece (equal number of words, no edit)?
Will The Times provide a platform for revisionists - and full scrutiny of what they are really saying - as called for by Macintyre in its own pages?
How about an article by Robert Faurisson or Arthur Butz to get open debate underway?
Anyone who believes that's likely may also be interested in a free trip with Santa on Christmas morning (just show up at the north pole on time).
This is the usual sick obsessive nonsense from Sid Walker. To claim that the "work" of Irving, Faurisson, Leuchter (or any of the other vile anti semites he often pleads an impartial hearing for) amounts to anything more than billious illogical racism makes me deeply concerned for Sid's own mental health and well being.
Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.
By the way, have you actually read any of the books in question?
If so, which ones?
Many of Irving's book are available as free download from his website, just in case you can't find any in your school library.
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:04 PM)
Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.
I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here.
I wish you a healthier New Year.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:04 PM)
Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.
I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here.
I wish you a healthier New Year.
Hmmm.
May we infer, Andy, that you - a professed and proud anti-Nazi - reject the principle of free speech and instead support the banning and criminilization of views on matters historical if you deem them unpalatable?
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:04 PM)
Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.
I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here.
I wish you a healthier New Year.
Hmmm.
May we infer, Andy, that you - a professed and proud anti-Nazi - reject the principle of free speech and instead support the banning and criminilization of views on matters historical if you deem them unpalatable?
Quite wrong again Herr Valker.... and who are "we?" - God forbid that there is more than one Neo Nazi here....
You are free to reveal your ignorance on this forum as often as you like - this should be self evident by dint of your continued presence.
Once again I sincerely wish you a healthier New Year but suspect that this is extremely unlikely.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:04 PM)
Well, thanks for your concern Andy - and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.
I think we would all appreciate it if you desisted from publicising Neo Nazi literature here.
I wish you a healthier New Year.
Hmmm.
May we infer, Andy, that you - a professed and proud anti-Nazi - reject the principle of free speech and instead support the banning and criminilization of views on matters historical if you deem them unpalatable?
Quite wrong again Herr Valker.... and who are "we?" - God forbid that there is more than one Neo Nazi here....
You are free to reveal your ignorance on this forum as often as you like - this should be self evident by dint of your continued presence.
Given your acerbic wit, astonishing erudition, prolific output and vigorous commitment to free speech, you are truly the Voltaire of this forum, Andy.
Once again, seasonal felicitations - from a less foggy part of the world.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 22 2006, 10:57 PM)
Once again I sincerely wish you a healthier New Year but suspect that this is extremely unlikely.
Thanks for the tip, Andy.
I'll check the New Year sales for affordable geiger counters and avoid parcels marked 'Polonium'
From a 1992 speech of David Irving
"I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children… When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.[18]
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"
And a little poem that he wrote in his diary on 17th September, 1994
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
I don't agree with this type of 'free speech' and frankly I find Irving one of the most vile people alive. He is to cowardly even to admit his racism in public, most neo-nazis are only too happy to publicly declare their bigotry.
John
"I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children… When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.[18]
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"
And a little poem that he wrote in his diary on 17th September, 1994
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
I don't agree with this type of 'free speech' and frankly I find Irving one of the most vile people alive. He is to cowardly even to admit his racism in public, most neo-nazis are only too happy to publicly declare their bigotry.
John
QUOTE (John Geraghty @ Dec 23 2006, 03:23 AM)
From a 1992 speech of David Irving
"I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children… When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.[18]
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"
And a little poem that he wrote in his diary on 17th September, 1994
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
I don't agree with this type of 'free speech' and frankly I find Irving one of the most vile people alive. He is to cowardly even to admit his racism in public, most neo-nazis are only too happy to publicly declare their bigotry.
John
"I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children… When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.[18]
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"
And a little poem that he wrote in his diary on 17th September, 1994
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
I don't agree with this type of 'free speech' and frankly I find Irving one of the most vile people alive. He is to cowardly even to admit his racism in public, most neo-nazis are only too happy to publicly declare their bigotry.
John
When someone is locked up for no good reason and in a manner that constiututes a gross violation of the principle of free speech - I'm inclined to come to their defence. It's just the way I was brought up. Sometimes I may lack the courage or time to defend someone in distress and under attack - but I know in my heart that it's the right thing to do.
Does that mean I necessarily support or defend every comment the person I defend ever makes?
I think a rational, unbiased person would conclude it does not.
Turning now to the actual content of the two dreadful, shocking, racist, beyond-the-pale remarks and scribbles quoted by John, material so grave that it led John to state "I don't agree with this type of 'free speech'" - a remark which calls into question his commitment to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution...
May I presume these are about the most shocking prose and verse of their ilk that is attributable to Mr Irving? That seems a reasonable presumption, as they were featured prominently by opponents in court proceedings involving David Irving over the last decade. I doubt that either Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers, or Jeremy Jones & co in the antipodes, would pull punches when dealing with Mr Irving. I miagine they'd cite the very worst and most shocking material they could find.
If so, they seem to have brewed a storm in a teacup.
Irving's speech com through as rather tasteless, pompous and racist to me (although it'sd worth reading the whole thing, if you are to read any of it - there are other bits his opponents do not so readily quote).
But is it really the basis for lifetime banishment from civilized society? Do these remarks really constitute a case for jailing someone - or for preventing them from speaking at public events or having access to the mass media? Should we really abandon the commitment to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights because of remarks such as this?
If so - and if such anti-racist zeal is applied with equality across the board - it will indeed make for an interesting and dramatic thinning out of the range of talking heads currently paraded in front of us in the western media - and the ranks of our jails will swell with racist hacks, especially of the pro-Zionist variety..
I understand that neither Irving's speech to a London Club, nor his ditty, were ever intended for publication. They were ferreted out by Irving's enemies.
The ditty, to me, is likely to be equally offensive to Jews and Rastafarians. I doubt that many of the former or the latter would care much for David Irving as a father-in-law, for that matter - yet organized Rastafarianism seems to have taken the rebuff in its stride. Why does Jewish lobby obsess over it quite so much?
After all, they discovered it themsleves, in the legal sense, having obtained access to vast quantities of Irving's notes in the run up to the Lipstadt trial. Irving did not offer it for publication. It was a scribbled note - among thousands upon thousands of other pieces of paper taken in 'discovery' by the Lipstadt defence team.
This is not to 'defend' Irving's comments or, God forbid, his poetry. I don't care to do that.
More importantly, I don't need to do that in order to defend his right to make speeches or poetic jottings.
That was Voltaire's crucial and oft-quoted point. It remains unanswered, I note, in all contributions to this thread to date that have been hostile to Irving.
Besides, playing the quotation game cuts more ways than one.
I, for instance, can easily come up with bloodcurdling, racist, sectarian and quite obnoxious comments by people who are generally revered in modern political culture. How about this from Winston Churchill?:
QUOTE
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Don't even get me started on the recurrent, quite blatant racism of modern Israeli leaders...Today's IHT - that organ of respectability - informs us that an Israeli think tank says only military strike will stop Iran
In essence, the article assists war monguers in making a case for an unprovoked violent (and possibly nuclear) assault on a nation of some 60 million inhabitants.
Do you consider that hate speech, John?
Or is your opprobrium restricted to safe targets like David Irving, a man who, whatever else his shortcomings, has never been known to advocate mass murder or illegal wars?
So what is really going on in this debate?
Why we are having a debate AT ALL about whether people should be jailed over their historical views?
The courageous Israeli author Israel Shamir suggest a reason, in his latest article entitled They met in Teheran.
Shamir concludes:
QUOTE
... Israel’s power is just a mere reflection of real Jewish power in the West, which is based – not on Israeli tanks, but on Jewish think-tanks; not on Israeli nukes, but on Jewish news. Unless the Jewish hold on discourse is broken, the West will keep sending its sons to follow the Pied Piper of Hamelin to the streets of Baghdad and to the hills of Lebanon.
Iranians came to conclusion that there is no chance to come to agreement with this world-wide Jewish media syndicate. There is no way to get to peace terms. One has to fight back, attacking the deepest sacral dogmas of their control. If this dogma were to collapse, the Jewish hold on discourse would be broken and the Jewish state would disappear just as the USSR did, said President Ahmadinejad.
This comparison calls for exegesis: the USSR was ‘one state’, a state where various peoples lived together as equals; the Jewish state is essentially ‘two states’, a rich state of Jews controlling the poor state of natives. Its dissolution will create ‘one state’ in Palestine; it will reverse the trend started with the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Then Iran, and all of the East, will be able to dwell safely without fear of American and Israeli nukes.
This is the reason why Iran hosted the conference. Nobody – and I do mean nobody, including British, French, American, German, Russian leaders – really cares about the victims of a war long past, Jewish or otherwise; they pay tribute to the Holocaust as nations pay tribute to their vanquisher. Iran has refused to pay this tribute; when will the rest of you follow their courageous example?
Iranians came to conclusion that there is no chance to come to agreement with this world-wide Jewish media syndicate. There is no way to get to peace terms. One has to fight back, attacking the deepest sacral dogmas of their control. If this dogma were to collapse, the Jewish hold on discourse would be broken and the Jewish state would disappear just as the USSR did, said President Ahmadinejad.
This comparison calls for exegesis: the USSR was ‘one state’, a state where various peoples lived together as equals; the Jewish state is essentially ‘two states’, a rich state of Jews controlling the poor state of natives. Its dissolution will create ‘one state’ in Palestine; it will reverse the trend started with the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Then Iran, and all of the East, will be able to dwell safely without fear of American and Israeli nukes.
This is the reason why Iran hosted the conference. Nobody – and I do mean nobody, including British, French, American, German, Russian leaders – really cares about the victims of a war long past, Jewish or otherwise; they pay tribute to the Holocaust as nations pay tribute to their vanquisher. Iran has refused to pay this tribute; when will the rest of you follow their courageous example?
Irving broke Austrian Law and was appropriately punished. In many civilized countries there are quite rightly laws concerning incitement to racial hatred.
The rest of this somewhat masturbatory thread is an attempt by Sid to rehearse and to justify his abhorrent views about Jewish people.
It is not a discussion he needs but a counsellor.
The rest of this somewhat masturbatory thread is an attempt by Sid to rehearse and to justify his abhorrent views about Jewish people.
It is not a discussion he needs but a counsellor.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 23 2006, 05:46 PM)
Irving broke Austrian Law and was appropriately punished. In many civilized countries there are quite rightly laws concerning incitement to racial hatred.
The rest of this somewhat masturbatory thread is an attempt by Sid to rehearse and to justify his abhorrent views about Jewish people.
It is not a discussion he needs but a counsellor.
The rest of this somewhat masturbatory thread is an attempt by Sid to rehearse and to justify his abhorrent views about Jewish people.
It is not a discussion he needs but a counsellor.
I agree there's some public jerking off going on here but I don't think it's coming from Sid.
You haven't explained the the logic underpinning your argument. By contrast, I think Sid's made his point well. If challenging prevailing orthodoxies is punishable by prison, assassination researchers should be conducting their research from behind bars. Conspiracy theorists publicly denounce the facts--and the figures--which are deemed by 'history' as the final word on the matter.
What's the difference here? It's a delicate and complex issue, to be sure. And it's not a high order issue to me, but to imprison a person for expressing an historical opinion by labelling it a hate crime merely points to an agenda driven attempt to conceal the truth, whatever it may be. Racists, murderous dictators and fanatics are everywhere throughout history. Historians can argue over the number of Cambodians killed by Pol Pot without being denounced and imprisoned for inciting racial hatred.
It just seems that on this issue--and this issue alone--the historical narrative is inviolate. Anyone daring to challenge the official view invites hellish consequences. I say bollocks to that.
By merely insisting that he broke Austrian law doesn't prove he deserved jail. It merely proves it's a stupid and draconian law, just like many others.
Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.
Do you believe offensive people should be classified as criminals? That's the only conclusion I can make from your argument.
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Dec 23 2006, 11:37 PM)
Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.
Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 24 2006, 12:28 AM)
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Dec 23 2006, 11:37 PM)
Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.
Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought.
You haven't explained how his prison sentence was justified.
You're merely name calling--once again.
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Dec 24 2006, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Dec 24 2006, 12:28 AM)
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Dec 23 2006, 11:37 PM)
Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal.
Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought.
You haven't explained how his prison sentence was justified.
The instruction of fools is folly
"Comment is free" says the Gruaniad - but it tends to be quite unfree on this topic and the Guardian is a prime offender.
This one must have slipped in under the radar.
I imagine someone in the Guardian editorial offices will get fried as a result.
The key paragraph is the penultimate (emphasis added).
Answer? There really isn't one, is there?
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?
This one must have slipped in under the radar.
I imagine someone in the Guardian editorial offices will get fried as a result.
The key paragraph is the penultimate (emphasis added).
Answer? There really isn't one, is there?
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?
QUOTE
A step too far?
John Hooper
May 18, 2007 9:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_h...ep_too_far.html
Should Holocaust deniers be prevented from airing their views? And, if so, how far is it right to go in stopping them? The questions arise because of what happened over here on Thursday night in the central Italian university city of Teramo.
Robert Faurisson, a retired academic who has been convicted five times in his native France for denying crimes against humanity, had been invited by a member of the staff to give a lecture. His host is one Claudio Moffa, a professor who run the university's master's programme in Middle Eastern studies.
Moffa was asked by the university authorities to think again. He refused. So the rector, Mauro Mattioli, decided the only thing left was to temporarily shut down the university, which he did.
He said his decision was forced on him by security considerations. In a statement, the university authorities spoke of a "climate of tension that could endanger the safety of students".
Indeed, when Faurisson tried earlier today to speak at a hotel, there were scuffles with protesters and the event was cancelled. However, it is also worth noting that the rector had been given a clear indication by Italy's centre-left government of what was expected of him.
In a letter quoted by La Repubblica, the higher education minister, Fabio Mussi, said "inviting to an Italian campus a figure ... who denies the gravity of the Shoah has no academic merit, but merely bears witness to a mediocre provocation".
For professor Moffa, on the other hand, it is a question of academic and intellectual freedom. His website vaunts a declaration of support for his initiative, signed by more than 20 other Italian academics.
The professor claims that he is not himself a Holocaust denier. But his most recent relevant posting to the site is entitled "Why Faurisson and the 'deniers' convince me more and more".
Picking up on the prison sentence given to David Irving and the various penalties inflicted on his guest, he poses the following question: "Why is ... judicial harassment that smacks of manic obsession necessary if the arguments of Faurisson and Co are indeed 'unfounded'?"
Answers anyone?
John Hooper
May 18, 2007 9:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_h...ep_too_far.html
Should Holocaust deniers be prevented from airing their views? And, if so, how far is it right to go in stopping them? The questions arise because of what happened over here on Thursday night in the central Italian university city of Teramo.
Robert Faurisson, a retired academic who has been convicted five times in his native France for denying crimes against humanity, had been invited by a member of the staff to give a lecture. His host is one Claudio Moffa, a professor who run the university's master's programme in Middle Eastern studies.
Moffa was asked by the university authorities to think again. He refused. So the rector, Mauro Mattioli, decided the only thing left was to temporarily shut down the university, which he did.
He said his decision was forced on him by security considerations. In a statement, the university authorities spoke of a "climate of tension that could endanger the safety of students".
Indeed, when Faurisson tried earlier today to speak at a hotel, there were scuffles with protesters and the event was cancelled. However, it is also worth noting that the rector had been given a clear indication by Italy's centre-left government of what was expected of him.
In a letter quoted by La Repubblica, the higher education minister, Fabio Mussi, said "inviting to an Italian campus a figure ... who denies the gravity of the Shoah has no academic merit, but merely bears witness to a mediocre provocation".
For professor Moffa, on the other hand, it is a question of academic and intellectual freedom. His website vaunts a declaration of support for his initiative, signed by more than 20 other Italian academics.
The professor claims that he is not himself a Holocaust denier. But his most recent relevant posting to the site is entitled "Why Faurisson and the 'deniers' convince me more and more".
Picking up on the prison sentence given to David Irving and the various penalties inflicted on his guest, he poses the following question: "Why is ... judicial harassment that smacks of manic obsession necessary if the arguments of Faurisson and Co are indeed 'unfounded'?"
Answers anyone?
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ May 23 2007, 12:03 PM)
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?
In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ May 23 2007, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ May 23 2007, 12:03 PM)
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?
In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.
You miss my central point, Andy.
"Sane people", on whose behalf you are apparently qualified to speak, may "conclude that there is really nothing to debate" about many topics.
However, they rarely feel the need to enforce their sense of certainty with harassment, legal bans, imprisonment, beatings and the occasional murder.
One is reminded of witchcraft trials so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller.
The quintessential example of a group of people who've concluded "there is really nothing to debate" is a lynch pack.
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ May 23 2007, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ May 23 2007, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ May 23 2007, 12:03 PM)
Why ban arguments you can easily win in open debate, unless...?
In the holocaust example you appear fixated with, sane people conclude that there is really nothing to debate.
One is reminded of witchcraft trials so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller.
It is evident here that only you are reminded by this when confronted with those awful people you seek to defend and whose far right views you seek to forward - your central points I presume
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.