If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
David Irving banged up!
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The man's a tit, an obvious loon. Doesn't deserve locking up for it though.
I bet not one person has been harmed (yes, even emotionally) from the halfwits books. Apart from the civil liberties issue it just makes him a martyr and lends him credence.
For someone who claims to be a researcher he didn't do a terribly good job of finding out that Holocaust denying is illegal in Austria and Germany.
Oops.
Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, as it also is in Germany, France and Belgium. Irving broke the law, pleaded guilty and now finds himself in jail. And while I don’t think Holocaust denial should be a crime I think it’s a bit rich for us to start criticising civil liberties in other European states.
Holocaust denial for many translates into inciting racial hatred anyway, although the likes of Irving are a little more eloquent than your average Nazi skinhead. While I’d oppose outlawing Holocaust denial here I can understand why it is illegal in Germany and Austria; there’s different sensitivities and the history is a lot closer to home for many people. (Although since Austria has a habit of electing people with views not dissimilar to Irving it’s surprising the law was never repealed).
Irving had been saying before the trials that he’d changed his views and in the trial he explained that he did believe the Holocaust happened. If I thought Irving had genuinely recanted his views I’d have some sympathy with him but since he’s claiming that he changed his views in the early 1990s what's he been talking about to neo-Nazi groups around the world for the past 15 years?
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll deffend to the death your right to say it"
So, it's fine for example for David Irving to get banged up for saying something ridiculous, but some other minority or wacky view gets the benfit of the doubt if it's agreed with.
Well since the British government wants to lock up those guilty of glorifying terrorism – who in most cases will be guilty of inciting murder or inciting racial hatred anyway suggesting that legislation is pretty unnecessary (and making many of us fear how this legislation could be skewed in the future to lock up awkward individuals) it would seem a tad hypocritical for the British ambassador to condemn the Austrian government for infringing the civil liberties of one of our citizens. Hence they’ll keep quiet.
Interestingly you won’t hear a peep out of Amnesty International either although their silence is imo a tad hypocritical.
This whole case is very odd however and I think the Austrians must have some kind of agenda, presumably hoping that by imprisoning a leading British Holocaust denier they’ll shed their own stereotypical image of all being right wing Nazi sympathisers. I mean Irving has been trekking around the world doing the neo-Nazi circuit for years, he’s broken Holocaust denial laws in plenty of other European countries yet has never been in trouble with the law – why now?
It's a shame that many people don't stand by their convictions when they see one of their enemies getting screwed. I remember that a Jewish Lawyer from the ACLU once sued on behalf of a Neo-Nazi group to get them a permit to march. Now there's a man who stands by his principles.
:chin:
Similar kinda thing has happened with Irving, pretty much his biggest enemy has called for his release.
Though he did break the law and he must pay for that.
That said from what I heard ACLU are pretty good. They defend the rights of anyone - not just the extreme right, but the extreme left and some other repulsive groups.
I understand they also protected the rights of NAMBLA. For those of you who don't know NAMBLA is the National American Man Boy Love Association and want to legalise peadophilia - a more nasty group you couldn't find. ACLU defended them on the perfectly reasonable grounds that calling for a change in the law isn't illegal, even if virtually everyone finds the law protecting young children from predatory perverts a right and proper law. MAMBLA members should only be prosecuted if they actually broke the law and had sex with children.
That is all it is. Bet it's why he did it too.
Whatafuckingtwunt.
Why couldn't Mossad just send some guys to get the fuckwit?
Holocaust denial is dangerous. It’s usually influenced by pretty extreme anti-Semitism and some absurd view of some Jewish conspiracy and the Holocaust being part of that. I also think you’re wrong in believing that Holocaust denial ‘won’t change anything’ – history does have an effect on the present and were Holocaust denial to become an acceptable historical interpretation that would have some pretty nasty consequences. And lets not kid ourselves, Irving might have made that particular speech years since but since then what’s he been doing? Erm speaking to Holocaust denying neo-Nazi groups all over the world...
Although if it was up to me I'd like to see him released. He’ll be grinning anyway from his cell, his book sales will surge in the coming days and weeks.
I don't make the laws. I will however have to accept the consequences if I break them. However stupid they are.
In what ways? Is he harming anyone? The only people listening to his speeches are Holocaust deniers or far right people themselves.
Anyone who denies it happened is not only cunt but a lying one too.
You might argue whether such laws are just or should exist, but the fact remains that they did exist. He chose to ignore them and to spread his filth, and now he's paid for it.
As someone said earlier there two separate arguments here- whether the existence of such laws is justified, and whether he should have been jailed. For those who believe in the rule of law, even if they think such laws should not exist they cannot (or should not) have much opposition to him being punished for breaking the law.