Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

David Irving banged up!

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
Three years for the Holocaust denier

Oh what a pity!

What a shameful blow to freedom of expression!

:D
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fucking sad.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Fucking sad.

    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.
    Exactly. How in gods name can you arrest someone for his or her beliefs? This is just fucking wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, in Rome do as the Romans do...

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Three years for the Holocaust denier

    Oh what a pity!

    What a shameful blow to freedom of expression!

    :D
    A bit tongue in cheek comment perhaps, but actually you're right. freedom of expression is much more important to defend when the views of the person is repellent and its certainly a blow to the ability of Austrians (or people visiting their) to be able to say what they think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are two debates here that I see. One is whether or not this man was breaking the law, which it seems fairly obvious he was. Perhaps more revealing a debate would be whether the law is just?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are two debates here that I see. One is whether or not this man was breaking the law, which it seems fairly obvious he was. Perhaps more revealing a debate would be whether the law is just?
    ... which it's not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well, in Rome do as the Romans do...

    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.
    you're just loving every minute of this aren't you? :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I doubt he was breaking the law either, tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    anyway, if you think a law is unjust and authoritarian, you have a moral obligation to break it - that's the only way laws get changed.
    ...or by voting...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you can do it for one view you disagree with...

    Oops.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well, in Rome do as the Romans do...

    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.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
    Why is it a bit rich? The law is trying to regulate what people are allowed to think and that's just wrong. If this nonsense had happened in my area, I'd be protesting it.

    "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll deffend to the death your right to say it"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's like NQA pointed out the other day. Some people's sense of fairness and ideas about rights go right out of the window if they don't like the person being unfairly treated.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...or by voting...
    americans still believe this!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    americans still believe this!
    I'm trying to...really hard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is it a bit rich? The law is trying to regulate what people are allowed to think and that's just wrong. If this nonsense had happened in my area, I'd be protesting it.

    "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll deffend to the death your right to say it"

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
    Oh, gotcha. I thought you meant it would be hypocritical of the British people to criticise the law. My mistake.
    Interestingly you won’t hear a peep out of Amnesty International either although their silence is imo a tad hypocritical.
    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.
    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?
    :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    Similar kinda thing has happened with Irving, pretty much his biggest enemy has called for his release.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Similar kinda thing has happened with Irving, pretty much his biggest enemy has called for his release.
    good, that shows her depth of character. And the satisfying thing is that we all know that Irving, being the chicken shit he is, wouldn't do the same for her if the tables were turned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bit harsh I think. The holocaust has happened...denying it now won't change anything and he made the speech years and years ago.

    Though he did break the law and he must pay for that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whenever people mention Amnesty and human rights in the same sentence I do laugh. Amnesty wouldn't know human rights if it went and bit them on the arse. To say they're a bit selective is like saying the Pope has a slight interest in religion.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He turned up carrying one of his own books though so at least he gets a bit of free advertising :yeees:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Randomgirl wrote:
    He turned up carrying one of his own books though so at least he gets a bit of free advertising :yeees:

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Bit harsh I think. The holocaust has happened...denying it now won't change anything and he made the speech years and years ago.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why? it's a stupid law, why must he pay for breaking it?

    don't get me wrong, the guy is clearly a scumbag, but i just think that law is highly illiberal.

    I don't make the laws. I will however have to accept the consequences if I break them. However stupid they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Holocaust denial is dangerous.

    In what ways? Is he harming anyone? The only people listening to his speeches are Holocaust deniers or far right people themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is just a little more than freedom of expression or saying what you think. That the holocaust happened is a fact as obvious as the sun rising from the East.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.