David Iriving Leaves Prison

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The British revisionist historian and sometime cultural agitator has been freed by the Austrian authorities today and will be back on British soil early this eve.


http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/TJ_leader/?content_id=5187
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6295621,00.html

[fantomas]

#1 its not right to imprison people based on what they think (thats just stupid)

#2 this 'historian' should get a proper beat down once he leaves his cell. what a p.o.s.

[Cpl Steiner]

Wasn't he imprisoned for something he said sixteen years earlier about the jewish holocaust when it wasn't illegal?

Truely Orwellian no?

Right or wrong,to arrest somebody for disputing an historical event makes me ask the question "did it really happen in the way that we have been taught all these years?"

Why would they try to silence his opinion?

I am now very curious to find out more about this Irving chap.

[fantomas]

Wasn't he imprisoned for something he said sixteen years earlier about the jewish holocaust when it wasn't illegal?

Truely Orwellian no?

Right or wrong,to arrest somebody for disputing an historical event makes me ask the question "did it really happen in the way that we have been taught all these years?"

Why would they try to silence his opinion?

I am now very curious to find out more about this Irving chap.

he's a holocaust-denying prick thats getting more attention than he deserves. if you really believe that holocaust never happened and millions of jews and others werent gassed like dogs, then yeah, you should check him out.

[gaijinsamurai]

Agreed. He likes to step-around his denial, saying that he acknowledges the death camps' existance (probably on the advice of some lawyer), but then says something like "most Jews died of typhus outbreaks" in the camps, in order to trivialize the atrocities.
In the spirit of intellectual discourse, I don't think scum such as Irving should be imprisoned for their stupidity, but I wouldn't mind if the cops turn their backs while some chavs beat the crap out of him.

[mas-36]

I'm sure he's pissed at missing the Tehran conference on Holocaust denial.

[fantomas]

my grandmother's entire family was gunned down in babi yar camp in Ukraine by the nazis, and this piece of sh-t has the nerve to lie and call himself a 'historian'

man what id do to him if i saw him out on a street.

[big_les]

to arrest somebody for disputing an historical event makes me ask the question "did it really happen in the way that we have been taught all these years?"

Why would they try to silence his opinion?

That makes no logical sense. Right or wrong, what was done to Irving has no bearing on the facts, or lack of them, in his academic work. He has been thoroughly discredited. Many of his critics actually disliked his conviction as much as you appear to, as his poor grasp of history was evident well before legal proceedings were brought. The facts should stand on their own, and for that reason I don't think he should have been jailed either. The sound kicking idea isn't bad though. As for "finding out more", I suggest you start here:

http://www.amazon.com/Lying-About-Hitler-History-Holocaust/dp/0465021530

Or if you're strapped for cash;

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/Reviews/evans.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Evans

Holocaust denial is a low-end political phenomenon much like conspiracy theories; a way for the devious and fame-hungry to sway the casually interested public to their loaded interpretation of events.

[Paul in Saudi2]

He was in jail? I thought he was at that conference in Tehran.

[Thor]

Of course not, he was just experiencing central european democracy.

[alfigel]

#1 its not right to imprison people based on what they think (thats just stupid)


First of all, he wasn't imprisoned because of what he thinks, but because of what he said. He violated the "Verbotsgesetz" (which means "ban law"), which says that all activities in the sense of national socialism are forbidden and punishable. He was punished because of "denial or endorsement of national-socialist genocide or other national-socialist crimes against humanity" (§ 3h in said law). To clarify this: he was found guilty, and initially sentenced to 3 years in prison, but his sentence was lowered to 1 year in prison and (iirc) 2 years on probation, and since he was sitting in prison for at least a year, he was released.

Second, I think that the Verbotsgesetz is a good thing, because - although it does limit the freedom of speech in cases of NS genocide and crimes and humanity - it protects the country from anti-democratic movements trying to hide under the cloak of "freedom of speech" and "historical research". This is a sign of a strong, well-fortified democracy where pseudo-democratic and anti-democratic movements shall have no chance.

[alfigel]

Wasn't he imprisoned for something he said sixteen years earlier about the jewish holocaust when it wasn't illegal?

Denying or endorsing the holocaust has been punishable in Austria since 1947.



Right or wrong,to arrest somebody for disputing an historical event makes me ask the question "did it really happen in the way that we have been taught all these years?"

Why would they try to silence his opinion?

I am now very curious to find out more about this Irving chap.

There is no opinion on whether it happened, because it happened.

[Thor]

First of all, he wasn't imprisoned because of what he thinks, but because of what he said.
Soviet Union called, they want their logics back.

[alfigel]

Soviet Union called, they want their logics back.

Yeah, right. Stop being ignorant, and get into the history of the whole Denazification process in Germany and Austria and the related legislation. And _then_ you can continue talking.

[Thor]

Not everyone believes in democracy and civil liberties.

I won't quote Voltaire because everyone is already familiar with that quote. Even if they don't understand it.

With that said I'm out of this thread.

[alfigel]

Not everyone believes in democracy and civil liberties.

I do. But that also means that I want to have it protected from people and political movements who threaten it. That's one of the lessons learned from the political events prior to World War II that led to dictatorships in Germany 1933 and Austria 1934, and that's why both countries are now fortified democracies.


With that said I'm out of this thread.

Whiner.

[Cpl Steiner]

There is no opinion on whether it happened, because it happened.

How do you know if all historical investigation (other than the state sanctioned version) is forbidden?

Funny sort of democracy really no? (is that the same brand of democracy that they imported to Iraq?:-*$)

Just don't let the police commandos hear you and you can say what you like.woot

[striker]

I am now very curious to find out more about this Irving chap.

Whe had a big debate when he was originally sentenced. Since there where many people appalled by "Austrias blatant opression of freedom of speech gasp, omg!!!", I've researched what the chappie really did and how he got his sentence.
(Disclaimer the following is out of news I googled and may not be the complete story)

In 1989 he was holding 2 speeches in Vienna and Leoben, Austria.
During which he denied that that KZ Auschwitz had Gas chambers (an old myth of the Neonazis has it that the Gas chambers in Auschwitz were built AFTER the war by the Allies for propaganda reasons).
Furthermore he said that the SA men during the Reichskristrallnacht have been masked provocateurs and not SA at all. (Wonder why the SA didn't stop them when the found that hundreds of provocateurs in SA uniforms roam the streets?)
Furthermore he said that Hitler was holding his hand protectively over the jews (to protect them from whom?)

That is the base of what he was charged with.
So he was charged with what he said in public. What he wrote in his books, was used by the prosecution to show further evidence of his way of seeing things. He wasn't charged for his writings.

Speeches like that are usually organized by the right wing in this country. It's safe to asume that police organs will be present at such an occasion. If they witness such statements, which constitute a breach of law, they must act.

IMHO he must have known what our laws are and that there will be police present. So him saying it anyway is either just a simple provocation and miscalculation on his part about the reaction, or he did it on purpose to create a proof for his theses by twisted logic. "See i said this in Austria, which has laws against it and they didn't punish me. They didn't even sue me, so it must be true what I said, because they knew they couldn't proof this in court."
So an Austrian non-reaction would have been used as proof that the Holocaust didn't happen the way it did. (And the world would condem Austria for being Nazi friendly for not doing anything .)
So, the Austrians had to react and they did when they saw the trap he was building for them.
Beeing the nice people we are, they waited until he left the country, before the issued the arrest warrant for him and didn't seek an international warrant.
They basically only barred him entry to the country, merely saying "Don't ever do this again in Austria, go somewhere else to stir ****."
Now in 2005 he comes back to Austria to hold another one of his speeches.
Again he either believed the warrant was expired, or he wanted to do another provocation. "See I came back and they did nothing, so what I've said is true"
So he either was naive in two cases or his little provocation plan didn't fly.
Anyway he pleaded guilty in court and got sentenced.
So it wasn't the Austrians oppressing the freedom of this poor fellow. They gave him an easy chance out, didn't really search for him. But him coming back, trying to do it again was simply too much.
He made a provocational stunt, got sued, pleaded guilty and will serve his time.

*

[alfigel]

How do you know if all historical investigation (other than the state sanctioned version) is forbidden?

I saw the evidence. I talked to holocaust survivors. That's how I know.

BTW, historical investigation is not forbidden, au contraire. It's just that the denial of the holocaust is punishable. But since it's seen as a fact within the scientific historian community (and beyond it) that the holocaust happened, that's no problem for reputable historians, anyway.

[wilhelm]

Wasn't there a German or Austrian gentleman who was fined because he taught his dog to lift it's paw when he said Heil Hitler, thus mimicking a nazi salute..