David Irving reverts to extremism

[Behind the Aegis]

Far-right author David Irving's repudiation of his views on the Holocaust and Hitler's role in it has not lasted very long. In a prison interview just days after he told an Austrian court he had been wrong to deny the Holocaust, he reverted to insisting that the slaughter in Nazi death camps was exaggerated, and that Jews "bear blame for what happened".

His latest statements, made just two days after he was convicted of Holocaust denial, could see him end up back in court. Prosecutors are demanding an increase in his jail sentence, and the Austrian supreme court must now decide whether he goes down for the full 10 years.

<snip>

The author was jailed on Monday for three years for denying the Holocaust during two lectures and in a newspaper interview in Austria nearly 17 years ago. But despite the conviction, the 67-year-old did not shy away from the subject. Irving complained that the Jews held far too much power and predicted their disproportionate control in the US would see a second Holocaust "in 20 to 30 years".

Just days after he told the Viennese court "I've changed my views", he said it was part of the human condition to dislike Jews and that they were at least in part to blame for the 3,000 years of hatred they had had to endure.

<snip>

more...

While I respect free speech, I have to say, personally, I hope he rots in jail!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. "Part of the human condition to dislike Jews"

Part of his human condition, anyway.

[Ken Burch]

2. Irving should be thrown to the IDF.

Tell 'em he's shipping guns to Hamas.

On the other hand, it is reassuring that his daughter carries a copy of "The Diary of Anne Frank" with her.
As Anne put it famously "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good at heart".

NEVER AGAIN!

[Behind the Aegis]

5. LOL!

I have to admit, this article made my stomach hurt. Your comment made me laugh! But, instead of throwing him to the IDF, I feel it might be better to throw him to Holocaust survivors.

Have you ever noticed that his speeches never focus on the other groups that were slaughtered, just the Jews? His denials only involve Jews.

[Che_Nuevara]

3. My passionate reply on the other version of this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x528121#528136

[cali]

4. I wish they'd just let him go

and toss him out of the country. His views are despicable, but I hate the idea of jailing someone for despicable ideas. Besides, this just gives him a platform.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Austria

The country he is in, what he did is illegal. He didn't need jail for a platform, he already had one.

I find myself at a 'crossroads' because I do believe in free speech, but is slander and liable really free speech? Sure, the "Holocaust" is not a 'person,' but what if he was saying this about an individual? What if he was slandering Matthew Shepard's mother...saying she was lying just to work the "sympathies of the gay community?"

[Che_Nuevara]

7. Then he could run for office in the US (n/t)

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I don't understand.

Could he run for office here? I am sure he could. I am also sure he would get votes, and not just from the extreme right.

[Che_Nuevara]

11. It was a joke.

I said it in response to

What if he was slandering Matthew Shepard's mother...saying she was lying just to work the "sympathies of the gay community?"

Does that sound like any American politicians you know?

[cali]

9. Sorry, I can't agree.

Supressing speech just serves to make it mutate into something that flourishes in dark places. Besides it puts people who hate what he's saying in the position of defending his right to utter this vile shit. Slander? Sue him again. As far as Matthew Shepherd goes, there are people saying that he wasn't killed because he was gay. Furthermore, there are people like Phelps saying he deserved it and that he's in hell. The antidote for bad speech is always the same: more speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I understand what you are saying.

What about suppressing hate speech? Should that be allowed as well?

I agree that Holocaust survivors should sue the hell out of him! You are right...as I think about it...slander is not a "jailable" offense (at least I don't think it is).

However, considering the history of Austria, should that be taken into consideration concerning their laws?

[cali]

13. I'm not sure what you mean by:

"What about suppressing hate speech? Should that be allowed as well?"

Re your question about the hx of Austria; no I don't think it justifies making revisionist holocaust hx a crime. Again; more speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. hx?

What is that?

I am sorry I can't reply to your questions, but I don't know what "hx" means.

[cali]

16. Sorry, shortcut. Hx = history n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

18. As for your other post...

You said you didn't understand what I meant by "about suppressing hate speech." Should that also be disallowed? It is 'speech' after all.

As for Austria, I think the "sum of the parts" applies here. The rise of "Jew hate" came from their country, so, 'once bitten, twice shy' would seem to be understandable. I think we are on different pages here. I don't see Irving as a simple 'denier,' I see him as a 'rallier' for anti-Semitic sentiment. He "inspires" Jew-haters to act out on their thoughts. The thoughts aren't 'illegal,' but the actions are.

(side note: Is "Hx" a common abbreviation for "history?" I have never seen it. It is a sociological abbreviation? I am not trying to be 'snarky,' but I have a genuine interest in language.)

[cali]

19. Well, hate speech is legal in this country, and

I think that's how it should be. RE Irving, I don't see that giving him an opportunity to be a "martyr" helps anything. I still maintain that it gives him a megaphone.

Hx started out as a medical abbreviation, and is now more commonly used as an abbreviation for the word in other fields.

[lvx35]

12. agreed.

People think they're fighting anti-semitism by jailing people like this, but they are actually feeding it. There is a contradiction in the fact that somebody can get locked up for questioning parts of this one historical event, but can say whatever nonsense they want about anything else without fear of reprisal. Let people question the holocaust. The fact that it happened is undeniable, and if some of the numbers or whatever are wrong it doesn't change the main reality of the event.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. it's lose/lose

Anti-Semitism is still acceptable because people still believe that "Jews "bear blame for what happened"." So, fighting anti-Semitism seems to work against us.

[lvx35]

17. I just think you have to be careful.

If a tiny ant were to declare war on a King, and provoked him to such anger that he went berserk in the royal court with a sledge hammer trying to kill the ant, it would be a great victory for the ant regardless of the outcome of the battle, because the ant managed to affect the actions of a king, and perhaps make powerful people in the court start thinking "wow, perhaps this king IS a tyrant, look at how he tries to punish that little ant"...
This is how I see the whole Irving thing. The guy is some piss ant, who was questioning the numbers of the holocaust maybe because he is a nazi or something, maybe he has some real concern. Regardless, most people don't care and want nothing to do with it in itself...However, when somebody gets put in jail for writing an academic paper, it makes a LOT of people look. Its not the ant that attracts their attention, its the sledge hammer.

[Colorado Blue]

20. In Austria and Germany, this all started with an ant who

became a sledgehammer.

They're very, very concerned that history not repeat itself.

[lvx35]

22. Sure, its a valid and good fear.

Its just that when Hilter was dangerous, he was the leader of a powerful first world country controlling the press, etc. Its fruitful therefore to look at leaders of first world countries that might be controlling the press, and squashing dissent and free speech. In this case it is not Irving who is controlling the press and free speech, though the argument could be made that Austria is. The fascist you have to fear is the fascist in power, not the guy in the trailer court.

[TheBaldyMan]

21. i respect free speech but i don't respect speech calculated to

stir up racial hatred, make no mistake, if Mr. Irvine was at liberty he would attend the conference being organised in Iran on the subject of the 'myth' of the holocaust. He would be one of the most honoured guests of President Ahmenijad.

When at liberty in the last decade or so, Mr. Irvine has toured and lectured repeatedly to extreme right-wing and neo-nazi groups. In fact the reason he is in jail now is because of a lecture tour he undertook in Austria back in the nineties where he espoused the view he has returned to.

He continues to be a proponent of views that receive a fertile welcome amongst anti-semitic and other troglodytic groups. He does not practice free speech, he uses it as an excuse to spread his insidious views among an audience all too ready to accept it. The price being paid is the increase in anti-semitic attacks in Europe. How many jewish cemeteries have to be defaced before you would consider Mr. Irvine and his ilk to be criminal ?