Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years

[CraigSca]

Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years
By VERONIKA OLEKSYNThe Associated PressMonday, February 20, 2006; 1:00 PM
VIENNA, Austria -- Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison, even after conceding he wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived in court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books _ "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving told the court before his sentencing, at which he faced up to 10 years in prison.
He also expressed sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."
But he insisted he never wrote a book about the Holocaust, which he called "just a fragment of my area of interest."
"In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis," testified Irving, who has written nearly 30 books.
The court said Irving had three days to appeal his sentence. His lawyer did not immediately say whether he planned to do so.
Irving, 67, has been in custody since his November arrest 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. He has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.
The convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
Irving's trial came amid new _ and fierce _ debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered deadly 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 was writing his memoirs in detention 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. Before the trial began, Irving told reporters he now acknowledges that the Nazis systematically slaughtered Jews during World War II.
"History is like a constantly changing tree," he said.
In the past, however, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and he 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.
Vienna's national court, where the trial is being held, ordered the balcony gallery closed to prevent projectiles from being thrown down at the bench, the newspaper Die Presse reported Sunday.
It quoted officials as saying they were bracing for Irving's supporters to give him the Nazi salute or shout out pro-Hitler slogans during the trial.
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 $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.

Thoughts?

[Draft Dodger]

historian needs to be in quotes, I think.

[Glengoyne]

Ya know I have a problem jailing someone for telling lies. This is too much control. Censorship is most always a bad thing, even when it is lies that are being censored.

[jeff061]

Pretty weak this can happen. Not sure why a bigger deal isn't being made of this.

[Buccaneer]

I think we have to wait a whole (a couple of more generations) before one can get a better historical perspective on this time period. Right now, we are too close.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think we have to wait a whole (a couple of more generations) before one can get a better historical perspective on this time period. Right now, we are too close.

Totally agree.

[molson]

So I guess the vague Austrian legal principle here is, if the government decides something is "really, really, true", than speech opposing that view can be regulated and criminalized. That's pretty distrurbing.

[AlexB]

I was going to post this earlier, but I can't decide where I stand on it: denying the holocaust is plain dumb and insulting to a huge body of people, Jewish or non-Jewish. I defy anyone to visit one of the old concentration camps and fail to be horrified at the extent of what man can do to one another, and how anybody can deny the events is beyond me.

The man is a proven racist, a scumbag and a self-publicising twat (carrying his own book into his trial I assume to try and boost sales through his notoriety).

But at the same time I do feel getting sent to jail for this is wrong... In my mind I can resolve it as a bad thing has happened to a bad person.

[Buccaneer]

I'll give you an example. How should one rank the Holocaust in comparison to other massive genocides? What if Stalin and the Soviets were our most feared enemy in the 30's and 40's instead of Nazi Germany (instead of our ally)? Would we then rank their slaughter of 21 millions as the worse Holocaust?

[jeff061]

His beliefs or how much of a twit he is does not matter in the least. It's his opinion and he shouldn't be incarcerated saying it, no matter what it is. It's such an easy concept I hope no one thinks I'm insulting their intelligence by stating it .

[Honolulu_Blue]

He shouldn't be sent to jail for this. He is a man of little or no redeeming qualities, but he shouldn't be jailed for his opinions, no matter how very, very wrong they are.

[Noop]

Man... Atleast the Jews are still Jews. Can't say the same for another race which was treated much worst in my opinion.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Noop

Man... Atleast the Jews are still Jews. Can't say the same for another race which was treated much worst in my opinion.

The Jews are still Jews, but another race can't say the same...they're not still Jews?

Or did you mean "they're not still African"?

African, uh, isn't a race. It's a geographical identifier (unless you're suggesting that white individuals from Africa are racially the same as black individuals, only they don't get out enough).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'll give you an example. How should one rank the Holocaust in comparison to other massive genocides? What if Stalin and the Soviets were our most feared enemy in the 30's and 40's instead of Nazi Germany (instead of our ally)? Would we then rank their slaughter of 21 millions as the worse Holocaust?

Yup - or what happened in Rwanda, the holocaust that most of the most Western world remains unaware of ? Supressing the rights of scum like this does everything a disservice.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The Jews are still Jews, but another race can't say the same...they're not still Jews?

Or did you mean "they're not still African"?

African, uh, isn't a race. It's a geographical identifier (unless you're suggesting that white individuals from Africa are racially the same as black individuals, only they don't get out enough).

*Can Of Worms Opens* I meant that Jews still have their history. Same can't be said for another group. The history they have observed happened in another country far from their original one.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, Stalin was just general mass murder that happens with most totalitarian (sp?) states. If you were loyal, old Uncle Joe didn't care if you were Jewish, Christian, or whatever.

Rwanda on the other hand was a holocaust in every sebse of the world.

[sabotai]

I disagree with sending him to jail, but no great lose there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Noop

*Can Of Worms Opens* I meant that Jews still have their history. Same can't be said for another group. The history they have observed happened in another country far from their original one.

Quite a lot of Jewish history took place in nations other than "their own" as well, FWIW. Read the label on the can before you open it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Ya know I have a problem jailing someone for telling lies. This is too much control. Censorship is most always a bad thing, even when it is lies that are being censored.

Ew... I'm agreeing with Glen again. Make is stop!

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

It is kind of interesting that European countries like France and Germany who were some of the first to re-print the Muslim cartoons in the name of supporting freedom of speech, are also among those European countries that have laws against Holocaust denial similar to what they have in Austria.

[Ksyrup]

OK, I'm confused here. The article says that he was charged last November for violating a 1992 law based on two 1989 speeches. It then says that he was arrested on a 1989 warrant. Were these people clairvoyant, or is this not only a violation of free speech principles, but also an ex post facto issue?

It's times like this that I'm glad I live where I live.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's times like this that I'm glad I live where I live.

Seriously - America rules - it's just surprising to see this kind of stuff in Western Europe.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's times like this that I'm glad I live where I live.

I might be wrong as I have zero interest in United States politics, but isn't your government able to withhold it's citizens as prisoners at a whim, without judicial review, if they are suspected of being a threat?

[Ksyrup]

US citizens? I do not believe so. I think the current issues are over the treatment of non-citizen "enemy combatants."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I might be wrong as I have zero interest in United States politics, but isn't your government able to withhold it's citizens as prisoners at a whim, without judicial review, if they are suspected of being a threat?

Those people in Gitmo are enemy combatants. We're at war... with Terror and they are... terrorists (or associate with terrorists)so they are clearly on Terror's side. It's completely... uh, legit?

Same with all those warrantless wiretaps.

We have been taking our civil liberties very seriously in the USofA of late.

[Ksyrup]

Yes, I'm scared to death of my government. I'm sure you and I are next.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

C'mon HB, those people in Guantanamo are Muslim and the terrorists are Muslim. Makes perfect sense.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Those people in Gitmo are enemy combatants. We're at war... with Terror and they are... terrorists (or associate with terrorists)so they are clearly on Terror's side. It's completely... uh, legit?

Same with all those warrantless wiretaps.

We have been taking our civil liberties very seriously in the USofA of late.

Don't forget the sneak-n-peek warrants that we recently made permanent, iirc

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Don't forget the sneak-n-peek warrants that we recently made permanent, iirc

SI

Well just to make you happy. I'm pretty sure we still disagree on things like this.

[Desnudo]

It's a very specifc law that targets a specific moment in history that goes beyond the pall of what I'm able to comprehend logically as an American sixty years removed. Normally, I believe in complete freedom of speech, but this is a very special case. I think the situation in some countries, like Germany, is still such that given the right moment and the right person...so the law makes sense to me.

And the guy is a dumbass for staying in a country like that when he could have moved a few hundred miles and said whatever the hell he wanted.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Normally, I believe in complete freedom of speech, but this is a very special case.

Why? In that case, can any genocide denier be jailed because of a 'special case'? Can those who deny a genocide of Native Americans by the United States or of Armenians by Turkey be sentanced to jail time?

Why?

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why? In that case, can any genocide denier be jailed because of a 'special case'?

In Austria, yes. Because they have a law against it.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Quite a lot of Jewish history took place in nations other than "their own" as well, FWIW. Read the label on the can before you open it.

Damn bro your dense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

In Austria, yes. Because they have a law against it.

Whooooosh!

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Whooooosh!

If that's supposed to be something going over my head, please enlighten me.

[ISiddiqui]

It went completely over your head. The statement was not about Austria's law, but Desnudo's belief that free speech could be curtailed in this 'special case'.

[WSUCougar]

Well, no, then, it didn't go completely over my head.

Your applying an American notion of free speech that doesn't apply in Austria. They have determined, for obvious and grim reasons, that this particular form of "free speech" has potentially terrible ramifications in their country. So a law was passed to make such free speech illegal. I don't see at all why this immediately bridges to some blanket attempt to thwart all forms of free expression.

[ISiddiqui]

Whooosh.

Once again.. irrelevent. Austria didn't say it normally believes in 'complete freedom of speech'. In fact, I believe the prior sentance is the first time I MENTIONED Austria in this thread.

[WSUCougar]

Wow, don't ever join the debate team. Just because I'm not grasping your particular line of argument doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. And I think Desnudo can probably come back and "whoosh" you a few times, but I'm done.

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Well, no, then, it didn't go completely over my head.

Your applying an American notion of free speech that doesn't apply in Austria. They have determined, for obvious and grim reasons, that this particular form of "free speech" has potentially terrible ramifications in their country. So a law was passed to make such free speech illegal. I don't see at all why this immediately bridges to some blanket attempt to thwart all forms of free expression.

Because either you have free speach or you do not. Once you start curtailing free expression, you begin your way down a slope that threatens to, over time, lead to all disident ideas being forbidden.

[John Galt]

The U.S. curtails free speech for lying in lots of circumstances. Those instances form the basis for libel and slander laws. The laws in Europe are essentially group (rather than individual) libel and slander laws. The U.S. also prefers civil sanctions (libel is rarely prosecuted as a crime, but it can be) to criminal ones.

I'm not a big fan of collective libel laws, but don't pretend that this a choice between free-speech and no-free-speech. Western nations have varying degrees of restricting free speech - no one is "pure" or absolute.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why? In that case, can any genocide denier be jailed because of a 'special case'? Can those who deny a genocide of Native Americans by the United States or of Armenians by Turkey be sentanced to jail time?

Why?

The question is should you be, not why. The why is obvious, at least to me. In the instance detailed above, which has no relationship to either of the events you mentioned, I believe the answer is yes. The German and Austrian governments agree or else they would change the law.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The question is should you be, not why. The why is obvious, at least to me. In the instance detailed above, which has no relationship to either of the events you mentioned, I believe the answer is yes. The German and Austrian governments agree or else they would change the law.

Well it isn't obvious to the rest of us, so I was asking why should this particular special case be considered a crime to question? Is it because it is offensive? Is it because it is dangerous? Why exactly should it be banned?

[Desnudo]

I said why in my first post.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Wow, don't ever join the debate team. Just because I'm not grasping your particular line of argument doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. And I think Desnudo can probably come back and "whoosh" you a few times, but I'm done.

Actually I'd say the ass was you for thinking I'd be so dumb that I wouldn't have known something said for at least half the thread, including the OP.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well it isn't obvious to the rest of us, so I was asking why should this particular special case be considered a crime to question? Is it because it is offensive? Is it because it is dangerous? Why exactly should it be banned?

Why are there individual libel laws? Why do we treat libel of public people differently? Why are slander and libel treated differently?

These are all legitimate questions. The fact is that every country with a protection free speech must decide what "free speech" means. You may not agree with another country's conception, but don't act like it is so outlandish and indefensible.

The argument for collective libel laws is that like defamation of a person, defamation of a group can be so harmful, that the underlying speech should be regulated. In Europe, given the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust, some societies have decided that holocaust denial is out of bounds. While I don't agree with that conclusion, I do understand it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Why are there individual libel laws? Why do we treat libel of public people differently? Why are slander and libel treated differently?

These are all legitimate questions. The fact is that every country with a protection free speech must decide what "free speech" means. You may not agree with another country's conception, but don't act like it is so outlandish and indefensible.

The argument for collective libel laws is that like defamation of a person, defamation of a group can be so harmful, that the underlying speech should be regulated. In Europe, given the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust, some societies have decided that holocaust denial is out of bounds. While I don't agree with that conclusion, I do understand it.

I'm not all that familiar with collective libel laws, but they seem ridiculous and unnecessary to me. I guess the difference I see between individual and collective libel is that whether Michael Jackson has had intercourse with a child or Tom Cruise is gay are not "facts" that are so well known as to be beyond the pale of ridiculousness. We might all think we know whether those are true statements, but as individuals they have the right to contend they are not truthful. And of course, when you're talking about common folk like us, we have even more rights in that arena.

Here, we're talking about facts so well known it is absurd to criminalize speech which suggests otherwise. If I insist the sky is green, I don't need to be put in jail. I'm not really sure I understand the importance of criminalizing this speech because of the Holocaust. These are facts that anyone who is rational and has modicum of intelligence (and willingness to learn the truth) can comprehend and determine.

As far as absolute free speech, it's one thing to argue against the Holocaust and quite another to then advocate the "real" extermination of Jews because they perpetrated this great fraud on the world. The latter is where I think drawing the line is less troubling and is akin to the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" scenario, not simply arguing against all common sense that a particular fact known to the entire world is incorrect.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Noop

Damn bro your dense.

[st.cronin]

Fantastic thread so far! Keep it up guys!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Why are there individual libel laws? Why do we treat libel of public people differently? Why are slander and libel treated differently?

These are all legitimate questions. The fact is that every country with a protection free speech must decide what "free speech" means. You may not agree with another country's conception, but don't act like it is so outlandish and indefensible.

The argument for collective libel laws is that like defamation of a person, defamation of a group can be so harmful, that the underlying speech should be regulated. In Europe, given the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust, some societies have decided that holocaust denial is out of bounds. While I don't agree with that conclusion, I do understand it.

As Ksyrup pointed out, there is a very large difference between individual libel and collective libel. In individual libel there definitely are demonstrable harms that can attach from something where the truth is not well known. I fail to see the actual harm that comes from denying the Holocaust, especially since the truth of it is well known. I mean does Holocaust denial create more violence against Jews, or would those that tend to deny the Holocaust willing to do such violence in its absense?

At some point you can call most statements about entire groups harmful. Why is denying the Holocaust worse than, oh, saying all Muslims are terrorists? In fact, plenty of Arab papers have seized on this decision as demonstrating the hypocrisy of the West. Sure, they'll use anything, but frankly I can't say they are wrong here. It's wrong to 'harm' one group, but ok to do so for the other?

So, no... I can't even understand it, while in the same sentance claiming to support freedom of speech. If every country can define 'free speech' in their own way, does the underlying concept have any merit? Hell, Iran can say it has free speech with the exception of blasphemy, which includes criticizing God's state.