[bboisvert]

Orginal article can be found here http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ust060220.html

Below is a quote reposted under the "Fair Use Doctrine" Copyright © CBC 2006

British historian sentenced to 3 years for denying Holocaust

Last Updated Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:10:57 EST CBC News

British historian David Irving was sentenced in Austria to three years in prison after pleading guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust, saying he erred in contending there were no Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War. Irving could have received a 10-year prison term. Under Austrian law, it is a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.
[FONT=verdana,arial]Alleged Holocaust denier David Irving carries his book Hitler's War as he arrives at court in Vienna on Monday. (AP Photo/Hans Punz)[/FONT]

• INDEPTH: Auschwitz

Handcuffed and wearing a dark suit, Irving arrived at the courthouse in Vienna carrying one of his 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, 68, told the court.

Before entering the courtroom, Irving told reporters he now believes the Nazis slaughtered Jews during the war.

"History is like a constantly changing tree," said Irving. "The more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
Irving has written close to 30 books.

He was arrested in November 1989 after giving a speech in which, it was alleged, he denied the Nazis killed six million Jews.
Irving had contended most of the Jews who died during the war succumbed to diseases such as typhus.

The Austrian law, enacted in 1992, also forbids the formation of any neo-Nazi party, handing out a 10- to 20-year prison sentence for those convicted. Austria's Justice Ministry says there have been 158 convictions under the law between 1999 and 2004.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]

[/FONT]

Is this justice? Is this fare? While I do agree with laws to protect against hate literature, I believe this goes too far and is absurd. But of course this country suffered greatly in the war and this is probably a sensitive matter there. I on the other hand think there is something wrong when a person goes to jail over opinions in a book about a sensitive subject.

[Rolling Bones]

All I have to say is "It sucks"!

When a person loses his right to deny something What will be next? Santa Clause?

Seriously.

[:haripu:]

Just for the records: Irving isn't going to jail for what was written in his book. He has on two occasions broken Austrian law by denying the Holocaust and spreading Nazi propaganda on Austrian soil.

He can have whatever opinion he likes and write books about them. But breaking a national law makes him subject to national jurisdiction.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by :haripu:

Just for the records: Irving isn't going to jail for what was written in his book. He has on two occasions broken Austrian law by denying the Holocaust and spreading Nazi propaganda on Austrian soil.

He can have whatever opinion he likes and write books about them. But breaking a national law makes him subject to national jurisdiction.

[FONT=Verdana]I thought [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Austria[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] was a free, democratic nation with free speech laws. I’m shocked it’s almost a Islamic state in this area.[/FONT]

[:haripu:]

you don't get it, do you? these legislations (which have their counterparts in many european countries, and Israel, btw) especially in Germany and Austria are a firewall against the threat of National Socialism ever becoming a political factor again (a threat which is still undeniably there).

Other countries - like Burundi or Canada or whatever - don't have them BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THEM.

Middle European laws have a much more relaxed attidude against opinions expressed on the Khmer Rouge or Stalinism. Like you do on National Socialism.

[Monique]

Irving is a very sad little worm that deserves hate. He is such a loser that he thinks by destroying Jews he will have a better life.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by :haripu:

you don't get it, do you? these legislations (which have their counterparts in many european countries, and Israel, btw) especially in Germany and Austria are a firewall against the threat of National Socialism ever becoming a political factor again (a threat which is still undeniably there).

Other countries - like Burundi or Canada or whatever - don't have them BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THEM.

Middle European laws have a much more relaxed attidude against opinions expressed on the Khmer Rouge or Stalinism. Like you do on National Socialism.

I believe Canada does have a Jews en masse dying denial law.

From wikipedia...

R. v. Keegstra
In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.

The Zündel trials
Former Canadian resident Ernst Zündel operated a small-press publishing house called Samisdat Publishing, which published and distributed Holocaust-denial material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (a/k/a Richard Verrall - a British neo-Nazi leader). In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." Zündel gained considerable notoriety after this conviction, and a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.
Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his viewpoints. In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal delivered a ruling in a complaint involving his website, found contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court ordered Zündel to cease communicating hate messages. In February 2003, the INS arrested him in Tennessee on an immigration violations matter, and few days later, Zündel was sent back to Canada, where he tried to gain refugee status. Zündel remained in prison until March 1, 2005, when he was deported to Germany; under whose laws he could be prosecuted for disseminating hate propaganda.

[Doofy]

Austria, in attempting to protect itself from fascism, becomes the thing it hates. Don't the stupid little dweebs realise the irony here?

And so much for the EU Human Rights Charter (11.1: Freedom to hold any opinion and impart that opinion to others).

[Weyland-Yutani]

While I understand it would be pretty nasty to get Nazis back or something..

what just happened here is that a person received a jail sentance for his opinions.

Who is the Nazi?

cheers

W-Y

[f1000]

Great, now Irving can spend his time in prison writing Mein Kampf Redux. Austria is making a martyr of him.

[subego]

Originally Posted by :haripu:

are a firewall against the threat of National Socialism ever becoming a political factor again (a threat which is still undeniably there).

If the threat is still undeniably there, I'd say the "firewall" isn't working very well.

[PacHead]

As much as I think that the guy is an anti-semitic, lying scumbag, I don't think he should be in prison for his views. God knows how many Liberals and extremist Muslims there are who wish to silence the views of people (like me) who don't share their twisted views. So if that means letting holocaust deniers spout their nonsense and lies, then so be it. Free speech is free speech, even for scumbags. He was sentenced under Austrian law though and not US law, so his jail sentence is not my concern and I don't really care if he's in prison.

[Millennium]

Incidentally, this is why I disagree with laws to "protect" against "hate literature". It is the unpopular opinions which need the most protection, even if that means protecting fiends like this. Society will ensure that these people never again claim the power they once did; laws against them will not only fail to do any more good, they only make them stronger by driving them underground, out of public eye and -most important- public ridicule.

[Monique]

It is different with the Nazis; they started a blood bath that cost the lives of over 80 million people and still counting. They built camps that killed over 11 million people and still counting. When someone like him tries to reverse time and adore an as... like Hitler he should be silenced; it is not like hate would go away but hate groups would have nowhere to go to whine about them having nothing because they are too lazy to get anywhere.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by Monique

It is different with the Nazis; they started a blood bath that cost the lives of over 80 million people and still counting. They built camps that killed over 11 million people and still counting. When someone like him tries to reverse time and adore an as... like Hitler he should be silenced; it is not like hate would go away but hate groups would have nowhere to go to whine about them having nothing because they are too lazy to get anywhere.

Guess Free Speech means nothing to you. When the state has to resort to the actions of that, it wishes to defend itself from, how is the state any different from the state its fighting not to be.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Incidentally, this is why I disagree with laws to "protect" against "hate literature". It is the unpopular opinions which need the most protection, even if that means protecting fiends like this. Society will ensure that these people never again claim the power they once did; laws against them will not only fail to do any more good, they only make them stronger by driving them underground, out of public eye and -most important- public ridicule.

Quoted for emphasis. Right freaking on.

[OreoCookie]

Imagine the outcry if that weren't a law in Germany and Austria (other states as well). Obviously it is illegal to do so in Israel. Many other countries, including the UK, Canada and the US do have laws against libel or racial hatred.

So just for your information, in a similar case, Ernst Zündel was charged for doing the same thing in Canada (Irving was one of the witnesses in one of the trials). Anyone who is crying foul should consider that even in countries that have no specific laws in this area, know no restrictions to free speech.

Also to others arguing that all laws limiting free speech are in conflict with the European Charter of human rights, there are provisions which have to be considered as well. To quote wikipedia here:

According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

However I am against those laws, because I don't believe you can defeat this kind of people with the law, but just with education. And because I don't think the ends justifies the means. On the other hand if people think this is limited to some countries, think again.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by f1000

Great, now Irving can spend his time in prison writing Mein Kampf Redux. Austria is making a martyr of him.

bingo. This is a monumentally huge mistake by Austria. His opinions may be vile, but jailing him for those opinions is only going to give the freak a "legitimized by oppression" platform in the future.

ugh.

[von Wrangell]

When are other writers and papers around Europe going to reprint what sent him to jail? Just out of support for free speech of course.....

[demibob]

Yes he's an idiot but an idiot should be allowed to have an opinion without being arrested.

[Monique]

Europe bled so much because of nazism; this is why it is against the law to promote such beliefs.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

Europe bled so much because of nazism; this is why it is against the law to promote such beliefs.

But he's not doing anything. If he's taking no actions, then how can he be doing anything wrong? This petty vengeance only serves to drive his beliefs underground where they can fester and grow stronger. Better to let them air out in the open, where the light of public opinion can burn them away.

Even Hitler knew that much. He was careful to hide the most fiendish parts of his beliefs until he had already taken power, and that was a large part of how he managed to take power in the first place.

[Monique]

This is that kind of rhetoric that drove some men to murder million of people; it is the same rhetoric that is driving skin heads (lazy and cowards) to murder Jews and African Americans. Hateful speechs will always find its way to crazy people that would act of these beliefs.

Hitler was a small man, that would easily murder a defenceless animal like a dog. The same people that had no trouble murdering children and years later their decendants are denying that ever happened; on the contrary of they were so right, why deny it.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

This is that kind of rhetoric that drove some men to murder million of people; it is the same rhetoric that is driving skin heads (lazy and cowards) to murder Jews and African Americans. Hateful speechs will always find its way to crazy people that would act of these beliefs.

Then what difference does criminalizing it make? You just admitted that you cannot silence these people through law, so what is the point of trying? Criminalize action, not belief.

Hitler was a small man, that would easily murder a defenceless animal like a dog.

Hitler was a vegetarian. It is unlikely that he would have gratuitously murdered a defenseless animal. Yes, this is ironic and may even smack of hypocrisy. Then again, this is Hitler we're talking about: should it really be surprising to find such irrational inconsistencies?

The same people that had no trouble murdering children and years later their decendants are denying that ever happened; on the contrary of they were so right, why deny it.

Not all holocaust deniers are driven by hate. Those who aren't hate-driven tend to be only slightly saner than those who are: conspiracy theories are common among both. But what would you say about someone who is not hate-driven? Should they be punished under your system, given that they don't even satisfy the conditions which your law would hope to stamp out?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Monique

This is that kind of rhetoric that drove some men to murder million of people; it is the same rhetoric that is driving skin heads (lazy and cowards) to murder Jews and African Americans. Hateful speechs will always find its way to crazy people that would act of these beliefs.

Hitler was a small man, that would easily murder a defenceless animal like a dog. The same people that had no trouble murdering children and years later their decendants are denying that ever happened; on the contrary of they were so right, why deny it.

[Fireball XL5]

Originally Posted by Monique

This is that kind of rhetoric that drove some men to murder million of people; it is the same rhetoric that is driving skin heads (lazy and cowards) to murder Jews and African Americans. Hateful speechs will always find its way to crazy people that would act of these beliefs.

Hitler was a small man, that would easily murder a defenceless animal like a dog. The same people that had no trouble murdering children and years later their decendants are denying that ever happened; on the contrary of they were so right, why deny it.

Baloney! Hitler loved dogs!


Hooo waaaa!!!

[Monique]

How can you deny the Holocaust and not be hate driven against the Jews.

There is enough proof, photos, films and testimonies to know what happened was real.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Monique

How can you deny the Holocaust and not be hate driven against the Jews.

You've answered your own question.

You might as well have asked "how can delusions not be based in reality?"

[Monique]

Exactly there are too much evidence to show that the Holocaust happened.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Monique

Exactly there are too much evidence to show that the Holocaust happened.

Let me rephrase:

You're trying to ascribe reason (hating Jews) to people, who by denying the Holocaust, have already demonstrated a complete lack of reason.

To put it another way, Holocaust denial is such a whacky premise to begin with, the presuppositions that lead to it can easily be just as whacky.

[thunderous_funker]

Again, that means deniers are delusional or driven by an agenda.

How does locking them up change either of those? In fact, I'm sure his next book will be about how the Mossad staged his Kangaroo Court and how he's a victim for "speaking the truth" and it will sell quite well like all the other racist literature.

People like this are not neutralized by official condemnation or retribution. In fact, they thrive on it. In fact, I bet his lousy books enjoy a considerable bump in sales/readership because of all the news this conviction is generating.

Hell, we're all talking about this fool. That wouldn't happen if not for this conviction.

[Fireball XL5]

I deny the second world world war really happened. It was just another Jewish propaganda ploy. They had a machine to produce a world wide hallucination.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Fireball XL5

I deny the second world world war really happened.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

Hm, perhaps some non-consensual sex with a cellmate will convince you?

And even if that doesn't work, at least it will prevent anyone else from reading your books. Won't it?

Well, the books may be read but no one will possibly share your opinion once you're making license plates now will they?

Will they?

Damn. This is tougher than I thought. I'll get back to you.

[Monique]

I asked my sister once, do the Chinese realized the harm they are doing to their own citizens by putting protestors in prison and murdering people?

She answered but they think they are right.

Isn't always the case even if their beliefs are wrong and inhuman, torturers can always excuse their actions by saying, I was following orders, I believe...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Monique

I asked my sister once, do the Chinese realized the harm they are doing to their own citizens by putting protestors in prison and murdering people?

She answered but they think they are right.

Isn't always the case even if their beliefs are wrong and inhuman, torturers can always excuse their actions by saying, I was following orders, I believe...

I asked Monique once, do the Austrians realize the harm they are doing to their own citizens by putting people in prison because of their ideas?

She answered but they think they are right.

Isn't it always the... oh, you get the idea.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by Monique

How can you deny the Holocaust and not be hate driven against the Jews.

There is enough proof, photos, films and testimonies to know what happened was real.

History is writen by the victors. There is no doubt the Holocaust happened. But I do question the numbers at times, I do think that its been inflated a bit. Should I go to Jail for that? Am I a Jew and Black hater now? Btw Gays and other groups where also part of the Holocaust, not just Jews. They just happened to be the largest group. And Nazi's are not alone in the crimes against Jews. Almost every European nation is guilty including Canada and the US. For a time it was ignored because while ugly many countries didn't like the Jews and silently while not approving of it, where not against it either. Not until the full extent of what happened did this attitude change.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Hm, perhaps some non-consensual sex with a cellmate will convince you?

I'll try anything twice.

[zacharydz]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

History is writen by the victors. There is no doubt the Holocaust happened. But I do question the numbers at times, I do think that its been inflated a bit. Should I go to Jail for that? Am I a Jew and Black hater now? Btw Gays and other groups where also part of the Holocaust, not just Jews. They just happened to be the largest group. And Nazi's are not alone in the crimes against Jews. Almost every European nation is guilty including Canada and the US. For a time it was ignored because while ugly many countries didn't like the Jews and silently while not approving of it, where not against it either. Not until the full extent of what happened did this attitude change.

good point bboisvert. Many people falsely assume that historians have to either unquestionably accept or deny the holocaust. That's just absurd, and anyone advocating such zero-sum options is just as illogical as those they condemn.

For example, many Historians have revised death counts for World War I. Determining the casualties in any conflict is imprecise at best. Very few conflicts do historians give one specific number for casualties, precisely because they are so hard to determine. The causality counts for WWI often range from 10 - 60+ million. Historians aren't accused of being evil for revising such data with new research. In fact. such skepticism is how the field of history is advanced.


But it is flat out illegal to for historians to question the 6-million deaths of the Holocaust. (They will be jailed for attempting to downplay the Holocaust) Researching a more accurate death count is striving to record more accurate history. How does one person's individual torture, pain, and murder become dependent upon other people's pain? Each individual victim of the Holocaust is just as tragic regardless if the total number killed is 5, 6, 7, or 10 million.

Now, the next rebuttal of those wishing to crush free speech will claim that only the type of person how secretly harbors Nazi sympathies would want to have more accurate statistics. They further ask why it is important? If they hold that view, they might as well abolish the whole field of history, since history attempts to discover the truth. (and rather maladroitly, and thus the need for many historians to question each historical 'fact').


Also, for those getting so upset about more research into the Holocaust...Have any of you ever considered that more accurate research might uncover evidence that would actually INCREASE the death count?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

When are other writers and papers around Europe going to reprint what sent him to jail? Just out of support for free speech of course.....

...