David Does The Denial Dance
David Irving, besides being a fairly decent historian, is also one of those bottom-dwellers on the human food chain who make most of their living feeding off of Holocaust Denial. Today, because of Austria’s strict (and quite counter to the notion of free speech as we know it) Holocaust Denial laws, he is being forced to admit as much in a bid to avoid jail time:
The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving today pleaded guilty to charges of denying the Holocaust in 1989 but claimed his views had changed since then.
As his trial on Holocaust-denial charges opened in Vienna, Irving told the court he no longer questioned the fact that millions of Jews died in the second world war.
The 68-year-old faces up to 10 years in prison for two speeches he made on a visit to Austria in 1989, which included a call for an end to the “gas chambers fairytale”. The speeches claimed Adolf Hitler had helped Europe’s Jews and that the Holocaust was a myth.
Last week Irving said Austria’s laws meant he had no choice but to plead guilty to the charges. His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said there had clearly been a violation of article three of a law that criminalises publicly diminishing, denying or justifying the Holocaust.
But Irving’s defence will argue in mitigation, to an eight-member jury and panel of three judges, that the emergence of new documents had made him revise his views since 1989.
This morning, outside court, Irving told reporters: “History is a constantly growing tree – the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989. Yes, there were gas chambers. Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don’t know the figures. I’m not an expert on the Holocaust.”
Irving said he considered it “ridiculous” that he was standing trial for remarks made 17 years ago. Handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, he arrived at the court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books, Hitler’s War, which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Shortly later in court, speaking in German, he said: “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.”
This is quite a switch from just a few short years ago when Irving sued author Deborah Lipstadt for libel when she called him, you guessed it, a Holocaust denier.
This is all strictly legal manuevering, however; notice his slippery language (“millions of Jews died” – yes, but how? There were gas chambers – but what were they used for, David?). As Damian Penny points out, his website is still a treasure trove of Nazi glorification and links to fellow revisionists, and you can bet that, if Irving retains his freedom, he’ll soon be back on the revisionist lecture circuit….
UPDATE 2:56 p.m.: Irving has just recieved 3 years in prison…a blow against Holocaust Denial, yes, but also a blow against free speech…
Probably still believes there was no Holocaust too.
It is a blow for free speech, but what he’s said in the past comes close to the limitations on someone yelling “fire” in an enclosed area and then admitting that they were just kidding around.
Countries like Austria (and Germany?) have good reasons to have such laws on their books, since the Holocaust denial movements began during the Nuremberg trials. “The Odessa File” got much of it’s source material from the burgeoning Nazi organizations that sprung up after the war in Germany and Austria, and operated in almost total secrecy for the better part of 20+ years.
He also knew exactly the risks he was taking when he made such statements, so ignorance of the law is no excuse here as well.
While I understand the sentiment behind this law, it’s a terrible law.
Dmac- How do you distinguish Holocaust denial from disparaging cartoons of Mohammed, or counterfactual assertions that Mohammed conquered ?
Seen from the point of view of an outraged Palestinian protestor, several countries in Europe have laws making it a crime to say things Jews are outraged by (like denying the Holocaust) but protect speech that Muslims are outraged by. That’s a blatant double standard.
Can you honestly say that this hypothetical protestor would be mistaken??
Clint, well said – and exactly the reason, though I hate Holocaust denial with every fiber of my body – that I can’t get excited about this outcome…
Good question, Clint (and of course, Mark), and the simple answer is I can’t make the distinction. But a country’s relatively recent history with genocide may provoke it into the enactment of ill – considered hate speech laws, no matter how well – intended.
Eisenhower had it right at the beginning of the discovery of the camps – he said to make sure that we filmed all of it, down to every last shred of evidence, because he knew that deniers would be springing up almost from the day we left. No question that the laws are antiquated at this point (and should be repealed), but it’s understandable why they were enacted, given the context of events at the time. I still believe that the aforementioned person was looking to get into trouble for his comments, and he got what he wanted (albeit eventually).
Here’s a question for you at this point: do you believe that all hate speech laws are inherently unconstitutional?
I dunno, dmac…they’re certainly troubling…I used to work in the Crime Records division of the Texas Department of Public Safety, and one of the things that always bugged me was Hate Crime enhancement bills – i.e., you assault someone for racial reasons or for sexual orientation, etc., and you get a worse punishment…the questions I always had were aren’t all (well, most) violent crimes hate crimes in one way or another, and does the person assaulted feel any better about it knowing that it wasn’t hate-related?
I don’t have the answers…but I think people like Irvin should be vigorously debated and challenged at every turn – but not by law enforcement. The truth of the Holocaust only needs, as you point out, informed witnesses who know how to combat the deniers’ arguments…truth needs no protection, it will always win in the end.
Or, as I may have read once: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”…
Good points, and I have seen similar arguments for the hate speech law’s eradication from our courts.