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
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
True. Although should we outlaw the Flat Earth Society too?
True. Although to be honest I like the approach that Deborah Lipstadt takes on Irving and Holocaust denial laws. Overall, I completely agree with her really and imo she is pretty well qualified to comment on Irving knowing first hand what a nasty individual he is.
Yup. Although he's been breaking Holocaust denial laws across Europe for years hence I'm curious why it's took so long to do something.
There are. As he broke the law, yes he must face the consequences. However on a pragmatic level Irving must be revelling in the publicity and debate he’s creating. He’s plastered over the homepage of the BBC website, nice link to his personal website from the linked article too and his book sales will already be starting to rapidly increase.
Eh. I say let the madman rant... so we may all mock him. His fault though, hope he has a hard time in jail.
Interesting view.
As someone,who also went around making speeches that people chose to listen to,said here
We go on about freedom of speach, so Europe can disrespect peoples religion with the cartoons of the prophet mohammed, and then turn around and say,
well yes freedom of speach as long as you agree with me. We can disrespect who we want, but people cant disagree with us or they get locked up.
To the muslim world it will look more like Irving was telling the truth as why bother to lock him up if he wasnt, i.e. if there wasnt someting to be scared about.
I think the law is rediculus
How hypocritical can one person be?
So Google are 'evil capitalists' for complying with Chinese law but David Irvine had it coming when he didn't comply with a local law that wouldn't look out of place in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Nice to see you are happy to throw your principles out of the window when it happens to be someone you don't like succumbing to the thought police.
I very much doubt it. You should contact the Guiness Book of Records.
What on god's green earth has an internet search company selling its core principles down the river in order to make a quick buck has to do with a Holocaust denier ignoring the laws of the country he's a guest in and indulging in a spot of illegal Holocaust denying?????
Are you feeling alright?
not really, both are a bit stupid these days
holocaust denial was only made illegal in the 90s
if you dont want people to forget about it, educate people so they can comfortably criticise these nutcases who disagree it happened
David Irving chose to break the law of the country he was a guest in to spread his filth.
The two cases couldn't be more different and unrelated if you tried.
By banning this it makes it far more attractive and seem like it has far more power. Just look at the coverage the BNP gets here, if we just left them to their own devices and gave them no attention they wouldn't get the votes they do.
This also applies to Nazi things in Germany, its all banned so kids go out and search for it in illegal book shops, because if its banned it must be interesting.
China and Austria are two countries where you are now allowed to say certain things.
In the case of China you suggest that the outsider should not comply with the Chinese laws. In the case of Austria you suggest that the outsider should comply with these laws.
Clearly then you are willing to curtail freedom of speech if it is something you disagree with.....
Irving broke the law and he's being punished for it. What's so fucking difficult to understand about that?
By the standard you seem to be advocating, we should simply accept the imprisonments of Mandela, Martin Luther King, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and any number of past and present prisoners of conscience (jailed according to "the law(s)" of their respective lands and times).
Frankly, I have been intrigued by this discussion and having not read any of Irving's works, was curious to see what may or may not be true about him. What I seem to find most in search after search, site after site, is not reasoned refutation of anything he has written, but simply the standard Zionist-led character smears and labelling which are typical of mainstream pundits for the status quo.
If Irving possesses the depth of source material I have seen suggested in various places, then there is something (as one poster alluded to above) highly suspect in the agressive efforts to attack the man rather than proving his historical analyses false.
What truth is so feeble that it fears to defend itself through reasoned discourse (of the facts themselves, not the individuals) in the open market place of ideas and free expression? Anything less suggests that what may well be populist belief today could well be the product of generations of imposed and inflated mythmaking cowardly reinforced with personal slander and violence toward any who dare question.
On the subject of the Holocaust, even the recognised historical scholar Norman Finkelstein has written at length of the industry which Zionists have made of the Holocaust for the advancement of their own political agenda.
So...a man denies the Holocaust over a decade ago, changes his views over a decade ago, yet is still jailed for expressing an opinion he hasn't held for over a decade.
Seriously out of order.
Irving, whilst possessing some talent as a historian, unfortunately happens to be a lunatic.
What I do know to be common practice, however, is that even those who dare question not only the populist conceptions pertaining to the Holocaust, but also the manipulation of the entire era's events by those who have made political crusade out of it - backed by politically powerful organisational structures (WZO, AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, etc.) and considerable financial means - to hold themselves above all scrutiny and criticism for their own evils (especially those of the state of Israel) towards others, are commonly lumped into the same littany of labels: "anti-semite", "neo-nazi", "self-hating Jew" (the common non-fact-based reply often seen levelled at Finkelstein, Pappe, Shlaim and other anti-Zionist Jewish historians/scholars), etc. etc..
It is interesting to note though, that throughout the UK court case you mention, neither Ms. Lipstadt (for all she claims to advocate about "reasoned discourse") nor her publisher ever deigned to take the witness stand to be cross examined. In reading some of the court transcript their reliance upon mere personal character attacks seems to be the substance of their position.
I thought he sued her, and the reasoned discource was in her book about holocust deniers.
Considering how you claim anti-Zionism can under no circumstances ever equate to anti-Semitism it’s odd that you seem to be verging on lumping anti-Semites and anti-Zionists together.
And as for the libel trial you couldn’t be further off the mark, take a look at some of what Richard Evans said for the defence. (It was Irving that sued for libel).
Oh and in case you’re thinking of championing Irving because you share a few opinions you might want to read some of the other things he’s said:
If it weren’t for Clan replacing ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist’ his rants would be pretty difficult to distinguish from anti-Semitic and disproved Protocols of the Elders of Zion style conspiracies.
To be honest Clan imo is actually like members of the Flat Earth Society, David Irving and creationists – he talks absolute nonsense and nothing backs up his ridiculous claims, his views are perhaps sometimes dangerous but essentially irrelevant. Like the other nutjobs, despite how ludicrous his views are he has a right to them.
I think Irvine was rightfully prosecuted, yes he has talent as a historian, but sadly he is something of a revisionist about it.
Try reading what I wrote one more time without reinterpreting to to suit your agenda, Dis.
I am perfectly capable of differentiating between true Holocaust denial (i.e. claiming the event never happend) and Holocaust scrutiny (as Finkelstein himself undertakes as have numerous scholars), namely the questioning of the industry and mythology established as accepted "history" by Zionists and their apologists in order to reinforce their broader ideological presumptions and aims.
My point was/is that Zionists themselves, as demonstrated by some of your own previous posts, do not make such distinction but tar all who dare subject any part of the Zionist narrative to factual scrutiny (from the earliest days of the movement through WWII to the present day) with the same slanderous labels rather than engage with any data that might undermine their precious ideological beliefs.
Once again, I am not lumping them together, I am pointing out the tactic employed by Zionists who are the ones smearing all who dare question their claims as "anti-semites" (or when they feel they must, "self-hating Jew").
I will continue to read the transcript and yes Im aware that Irving brought the suit. The part I read only contained the arguments of Rampton (publisher) and Irving (Plaintiff).
My intent is not to "champion" Irving, but to point out that to date I have neither read his actual works nor seen anything more than numerous character smears against him which have not made any credible intellectually-honest effort to refute whatever he might have claimed in those works on proper documented evidentiary grounds.
Only a fool would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
And there is precisely, true to form, the very slander intrinsic to Zionist ideologues.
Thank you for validating my point yet again, Dis.
As for your assertions that my claims are not backed up. This again is empirically disproven already by the numerous scholarly links I have repeatedly provided. The real danger arises from rabid intellectually bankrupt extremists, like yourself, who cannot bear to hold their precious beliefs up to the light of reasoned and factual examination for fear that they will discover the depth of duplicity inherent to them. Something Finkelstein, Pappe, Shlaim and numerous other more reasoned and honest scholars recognise.
You only undermine any claim to being a seeker of fact and truth with every such ridiculous, albeit wholly expected, claim such as the above.
Zionism is a political ideology, Judaism is a religion. Perhaps you need to take your own advice from your previous post and cease from confusing the two.
Seems you want to provoke another flame war is that it, subject? I have never claimed that it WAS, I have argued that the far more logically consistent explanation for the myriad of inconsistencies contained in the "official" conspiracy theory (that of foreign "Al Qaeda" terrorists being responsible) is to be found in the means, motive and opportunity available to our own intelligence community and MIC.
Without a full unhindered and transparent public invesitgation for which no agency or political figure (or summarily confiscated and classified evidence) will be permitted exemption or evasion from scrutiny under any circumstance, the truth will not be proven either way. Until then, it remains a matter of discourse over the utterly illogical claims of the populist myth (via examination of what has been researched and published) currently providing the basis for systematic suspension of long fought for rights and due processes of law, versus the more reasoned suspicion of those who stood to, and have ever since been, gain(ing) the most.
Perhaps the distinction is beyond your intellectual capacity to grasp, but do try.