Free Speech for David Irving?
The historian and Holocaust denier David Irving , after being released from an Austrian prison. He served 13 months of a three-year sentence and has been banned from returning to Austria. Irving maintains that his views are based on a close reading of historical documents; he accepts the existence of Nazi death camps, but argues that their role has been overstated by subsequent historians. He also argues that a free society should permit him to raise questions and state conclusions which others find offensive or unpalatable.
Austria is one of a number of countries to have enacted laws criminalising actions which deny, approve of, or grossly understate the attempted genocide pertetrated by the Nazis. Other countries include Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.
What are the limits of free speech? Even some of Irving's most severe critics regard his imprisonment as ludicrous. Surely the best way to challenge holocaust denial, in all its forms, is to debate it in the clear light of day? The historian Deborah Lipstadt has made a study of holocaust denial. You will remember that Deborah Lipstadt named Irving as a holocaust denier in her 1994 book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. In fact, she said Irving is "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". In 1998, Irving sued Lipstadt. Mr Justice Gray ruled in her favour, and sustained her description of Irving as a holocaust denier. His judgement, which you can read in full , is a fascinating survey of the historical evidence for the holocaust and a sustained indictment of efforts to deny that this genocide took place.
Deborah Lipstadt will be my guest on Sunday morning. I'll ask her if imprisonment is an acceptable response by a democracy to commentators and historians like David Irving.
Comments
That's right- lock up everyone we disagree with. That's democracy, isn't it? I can't think of a more blatant breach of human rights or a more unpalatable display of collectivist tyranny than to lock somebody in prison because of an opinion they hold. In my humble opinion, the Austrian government should be in the Hague over this. What they did is nothing short of pure thuggery.
I generally agree with you John on this issue of free speech, but what about cases where a person's comments incite hatred or provoke attacks on others? Irving has been addressing neo-nazi groups.
This isnt even a grey issue - let him talk - we'll all just laugh.
It's tougher when it's thugs like the BNP we're dealing with.
If you ban them, you become what you oppose.
Having said that - what a copper-bottomed moron this chap is.
Well, I'll be interested to hear what others think on this. I do think the incitement argument is a slippery one... certainly in the case of people like Irving.
Henry- Thinking more on this. Whether or not he was addressing neo-nazi groups, it would have to be proved that Irving was actually urging violence against Jews for that argument to work. If he's simply arguing that the holocaust didn't happen, no matter who he's addressing, he did nothing to deserve a 拢5.00 fine, let alone a jail sentence. In any case, the incitement argument is very treacherous territory into which to take the hand of government.
I think the Austrians have become mere gangsters with their treatment of Irving. Why this didn't create an international outcry I will never understand.
I wouldn't want a holocaust denial law in the UK. However, I can certainly understand why a country that experienced the Nazis at first hand, or a country that prduced them would take this action in the decades following the holocaust.
John,
while agreeing with you wholeheartedly on principle, I think you might be judging the Austrians a little strongly.
They are so paranoid about a Nazi resurgence they have gone too far ( I agree it's too far) - but it's understandable isn't it? I'm sure the regime there will relax.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The real question - and this resonates closer to home - is how do people acquire this hatred?
It is obvious that Mr Irving hasn鈥檛 read Martin Gilbert鈥檚 very revealing book 鈥淭HE HOLOCAUST鈥 may I commended it to him or to any one for that matter that wants to be informed about the history of the Holocaust.
In the words of Elie Wiesel, 鈥淭his book must be read and reread鈥
David (Oxford)- I presume there's no excuse for France, then?
Gee Dubyah- Understandable, yes. Excusable, no. I agree that your question about the source of hatred is a pertinent and important one. In terms of the rightness of government policy it's a mere curiosity, though.
What are the limits of free speech?
If there are limits, it isn't free.
SG
Stephen:
Theres no such thing as free speech, by your definition, since we have laws preventing all kinds of language abuses. Do you think there should be absolutely NO laws limiting public speech?
SG
Im sure you already have an excellent handle on this but here is my suggestion;
If there were total free speech i could write to your local paper's letter page and accuse you of paedophilia....isnt it all about balancing rights?
Im Not overly informed on this blog entry but I would think holocaust deniers could be taken to the cleaners for libel/defamation in a civil action anyway.
I can understand a formal legal respect for the holocaust, but I could see arguments for it being extended to other cases.
France recently tried to make it illegal to deny Turkey's massacre of the Armenians, fyi
PB
He is a bavard idiot to deny the holocast and I'm sure if he had had to live through any hardships or had toexperiance suffering and pain anywhere he would thing twice about saying the things he does in his foolish speaches. Prehaps a dose of simple life where half the world's population live in abject poverty might help the spoilt kid!