Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 BBC NEWS Holocaust denier Irving is jailed British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989. "I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital. Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal." An unidentified onlooker told him: "Stay strong!". Irving's lawyer said he considered the verdict "a little too stringent". "I would say it's a bit of a message trial," said Elmar Kresbach. But Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust disagreed. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website. Fears that the court case would provoke right-wing demonstrations and counter-protests did not materialise, the BBC's Ben Brown at the court in Vienna said. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust David Irving Irving arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust. Irving was arrested in Austria in November, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. He was stopped by police on a motorway in southern Austria, where he was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He has been held in custody since then. 'I've changed' During the one-day trial, he was questioned by the prosecutor and chief judge, and answered questions in fluent German. He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust. "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court. "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews." In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax. COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL Austria Belgium Czech Republic France Germany Israel Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Switzerland In 2000, a British court threw out a libel action he had brought, and declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist". On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views. "History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989." Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust." Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice." He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion. "Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm Published: 2006/02/20 18:45:31 GMT © BBC MMVI Very weird issue, I believe in everyone having the right to free speech, even if its dead-wrong (I'm lookin at you Sarge and AFC ). Do you guys think this is a valid law to have? I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow. 25 seconds ago in another thread, i stated that being dumb isnt a convictable crime. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow, you can go to jail just for being an idiot? Bill O'Reilly could be in a lot of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow, you can go to jail just for being an idiot? Bill O'Reilly could be in a lot of trouble. Only if he goes to Israel or Austria . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow. 25 seconds ago in another thread, i stated that being dumb isnt a convictable crime.I stand corrected. LMFAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow, you can go to jail just for being an idiot? Bill O'Reilly could be in a lot of trouble. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Dubya better watch his back too!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I actually think that this is stupid. I'd much prefer that such people just be publicly mocked. By jailing him, this sends a very, very different message and not necessarily a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wow. 25 seconds ago in another thread, i stated that being dumb isnt a convictable crime.I stand corrected. My thoughts exactly. This just proves that America is as free as you can be. I could stand up and shout that Slavery never existed. Everyone would just look at me and comment on my obvious retardation. Then we would all go about our business. This is almost as bad as the Muslims who riot. In fact this is an entire country acting like fools. I think this is insane and my father is Jewish and I have been to two concentration camps. Let the man believe what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 I actually think that this is stupid. I'd much prefer that such people just be publicly mocked. By jailing him, this sends a very, very different message and not necessarily a good one. I agree. It would hurt a historian a lot more to be unpublishable or unreadable than to be jailed, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I actually think that this is stupid. I'd much prefer that such people just be publicly mocked. By jailing him, this sends a very, very different message and not necessarily a good one. He broke the law. He goes to jail. Now, I'll usually be the first to point out the flaws in that argument when the law is a bad one. But I think you have to realize that anything related to WWII, especially the Holocaust, is a touchy subject over in Europe. That said, I'm kind of conflicted. Honestly, I'd love to see the guy shot for what he said. I'm certainly not going to shed any tears for him being jailed. But I'm kind of on the fence as to whether or not it is a bad law. I mean, like I said, it's a really touchy subject over there, but this law comes close enough to violating freedom of speech that I'm not sure if I approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 He broke the law. He goes to jail.Now, I'll usually be the first to point out the flaws in that argument when the law is a bad one. But I think you have to realize that anything related to WWII, especially the Holocaust, is a touchy subject over in Europe. That said, I'm kind of conflicted. Honestly, I'd love to see the guy shot for what he said. I'm certainly not going to shed any tears for him being jailed. But I'm kind of on the fence as to whether or not it is a bad law. I mean, like I said, it's a really touchy subject over there, but this law comes close enough to violating freedom of speech that I'm not sure if I approve. Its a tough subject, and obviously the Holocaust is a touch subject over there (for some reason...), but the law itself violates my notions of freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm with Chopper on this. One the one hand, I think Europe has lost the luxury of letting extremists gain any amount of influence within their culture. European history has taught them to create extra safeguards against instigators like this. In Germany the existance of Nazi party is flat-out illegal. That wouldn't happen here in the US, but Germany's track record is quite terrible in this regard, so I can see why they take extra precautions. On the other hand, I'd like to think rational, sensible people would see people like Irving for what he is, a sensationalist hack, and ignore him. Laws stifling his ideas wouldn't then be necessary. And they shouldn't be. But like I said, rational, sensible people have not historically fared well on the Continent. Maybe they gotta do what they gotta do over there. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 As a European I'm uncomfortable with the laws regarding Holocaust denial, but they exist because a number of European countries have been plagued by fascist politicians using antisemitism to undermine democracy. In the case of Irving, this is not a matter of him expressing an opinion once and receiving harsh punishment. He has a long history of promoting the agendas of violent right wing organizations. To emphasize, this is not about whether it is OK to lie about certain parts of European 20th century history. This is about fabricating a Jewish conspiracy in order to achieve your political goals by violent means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm with Chopper on this. One the one hand, I think Europe has lost the luxury of letting extremists gain any amount of influence within their culture. European history has taught them to create extra safeguards against instigators like this. In Germany the existance of Nazi party is flat-out illegal. That wouldn't happen here in the US, but Germany's track record is quite terrible in this regard, so I can see why they take extra precautions.On the other hand, I'd like to think rational, sensible people would see people like Irving for what he is, a sensationalist hack, and ignore him. Laws stifling his ideas wouldn't then be necessary. And they shouldn't be. But like I said, rational, sensible people have not historically fared well on the Continent. Maybe they gotta do what they gotta do over there. I don't know. Rational and sensible people have not fared well anywhere. I see history as self-containing entities, that can never be truly replicated, defeating the purpose of such laws. The next threat to European security cannot be predicted until after it happens and we do a collective "I told you so". I do not think they gotta do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 As a European I'm uncomfortable with the laws regarding Holocaust denial, but they exist because a number of European countries have been plagued by fascist politicians using antisemitism to undermine deomcracy.In the case of Irving, this is not a matter of him expressing an opinion once and receiving harsh punishment. He has a long history of promoting the agendas of violent right wing organizations. I didn't know that. That along with some good points by Henry certainly helps frame the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 As a European I'm uncomfortable with the laws regarding Holocaust denial, but they exist because a number of European countries have been plagued by fascist politicians using antisemitism to undermine deomcracy.In the case of Irving, this is not a matter of him expressing an opinion once and receiving harsh punishment. He has a long history of promoting the agendas of violent right wing organizations. Then jail him for instigating. Not for his ideas. I mean, I hate the right, all of the right, but I do not want them jailed for mouthing off (killed maybe, but not jailed ). What kind of society do we want to live in then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 As a European I'm uncomfortable with the laws regarding Holocaust denial, but they exist because a number of European countries have been plagued by fascist politicians using antisemitism to undermine deomcracy.In the case of Irving, this is not a matter of him expressing an opinion once and receiving harsh punishment. He has a long history of promoting the agendas of violent right wing organizations. Austria, in particular, is viewed by many (and in my own personal experience I can attest) to be the most racist country in all of Europe. I am all for free speech and public mockery over jail time as well... but the sad truth is that most Austrians probably want to believe what Irving said. Austria needs this law, most definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Can you imagine being jailed for something you said or wrote 16 years ago, even though you have changed your mind in the meantime? This is the type of result you get from a ridiculous law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Can you imagine being jailed for something you said or wrote 16 years ago, even though you have changed your mind in the meantime? This is the type of result you get from a ridiculous law. While I understand and identify with that sentiment, I'd hate to see what result you get from not having this "ridiculous" law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Austria, in particular, is viewed by many (and in my own personal experience I can attest) to be the most racist country in all of Europe. I am all for free speech and public mockery over jail time as well... but the sad truth is that most Austrians probably want to believe what Irving said. Austria needs this law, most definitely. I don't know, depending on how you define racism I would probably give the edge to France, and the countries in southeast Europe are not too far behind. No country needs this law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 While I understand and identify with that sentiment, I'd hate to see what result you get from not having this "ridiculous" law. Do not make the mistake of presuming there will be another holocaust if there is no holocaust law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I don't know, depending on how you define racism I would probably give the edge to France, and the countries in southeast Europe are not too far behind. No country needs this law. Debatable for sure, but I was referring to anti-semitism when I said 'racist'. Austria wins on that front, hands down. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Do not make the mistake of presuming there will be another holocaust if there is no holocaust law. I know. I'm just saying, this law has probably done more good than harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Make him walk through Dachau. If he had any doubts before, they are quickly eliminated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Rational and sensible people have not fared well anywhere. Historically speaking, I'd say they have fared better in some parts of the world than in others. Contrast the American, French and Russian revolutions for example. I see history as self-containing entities, that can never be truly replicated, defeating the purpose of such laws. The next threat to European security cannot be predicted until after it happens and we do a collective "I told you so". I do not think they gotta do this. Winslow, if we don't base our laws on our history what do we base them on? The value you place on a culture's history and how it affects society is interesting, but completely off the wall in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.