So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;
- the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
- the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
- why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?
He did not deny that Jews were killed,
No one said he did. He did say;
I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors.
This is a LIE. It is not an opinion. Just as a physicist saying g=3.4 m/s/s at sea-level would be lying, and demonstrably so, so to someone making this statement is lying, and demonstrably so. If is not a protected freedom of speech, as lying about facts for gain is fraud, not freedom of speech.
Don't think I am opposed to freedom of speech; I just think those who apply it to Holocaust denial are missing the point. For example; as a student journalist he claimed the media were run by the Jews, called Hitler 'Herr Hitler', supported apartheid in South AFrica, and was quoted as describing himself as a 'mild facist'. Now, all of this is freedom of speech, valid expression of opinion, even if it makes him a scumbag.
Here's a poem he wrote for his daughter;
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
That's freedom of speech. Makes him contemptable, but it's his freedom.
A quote from a speech referencing the UK's first black news anchor, Trevor McDonald;
I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children.... When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
...But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts...
He is perfectly at liberty to tell people what a misogynistic racist piece of shit he is.
All of this is different from LYING, DECEPETION & FRAUD, for example;
I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?
I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.
Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.
... this is lying with a deliberate end in mind; recruitment of people to his 'cause' of anti-Semetic, nazi-apologism, Holocaust denial. And the end product of those causes is VIOLENCE.
rather he disputed major parts of accepted history (i.e. gas chambers at Auschwitz,
He said there weren't any when he knew the Germans blew them up before Auschwitz was captured.
how much Hitler knew about the killings, etc.).
He redefines a word used by Hitler in speeches about dealing with the Jews from 'kill' to 'stamp-out', when that word has always meant 'kill'.
These are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact.
Why is it okay for other professionals who lie for gain to be punished legally, but not okay to punish someone legally when (in a professional capacity) they lie about the deaths of millions of people for gain? Why won't anyone deal with this point?
He also admitted that he no longer believed many of the things he said, in the 1989 speech that he was tried for.
The guy has lied in court (in Canada) before. This is the judgement from the UK case, which leaves no doubt about his truthfullness or lack of it;
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism
The court apparently believed he was lying again.
Even on the steps of the court he was still refusing to describe the deaths of Jews in WWII as the Holocaust, as he persists in his revisonist belief the Holocaust has been used as a money making scheme by Jews(he calls it a 'brand name'), so one can't blame the court for treating him like the lying scumbag he is.
I don't agree with his views on the subject, but I don't find it anymore offensive that the bullshit history I was taught in school.
When did you get told a lie at school comparable to "six million people didn't die, those who did died of disease rather than gassing, no one planned it, especially not Hitler, and the Jews had it coming and are still trying to control the world"? What school did you go to!
But those who accept this nonsense already must have some pretty extreme views toward the Nazis and Jews.
Incitement is incitement. The fact some people are more vulnurable to it than others is not the point.
He's not "purposely espousing lies", as he most certainly believes what he speaks and writes.
So, if a Muslim SINCERELY advocates the deaths of Christians due to his beliefs, using lies to attract an audience of likely supporteres, that's okay? And you seem to be happy to accept his good character, despite evidence he has none (based on accuracy of previous statements to courts).
I don't agree with his beliefs, but I think it's dangerous to "close the history books", and not let anyone have a differing opinion from the "accepted" version of events
Unfortunately if you believe this is about differing opinions you have fallen for the story Nazi revisonists use to justify their denial of fact. There is, nor has there been, nor will there be any limit of scholarly research into WWII and the Holocaust. The Holocaust revisonists make it out that this is what it is about. It isn't.
What this is about is stopping people lying about established fact so as to deceieve others and get them involved in anti-Semetism.
It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.
Maybe we should just round up all the holocaust deniers into some kind of camp so we can concentrate them all in one area. That wouldn't be the least bit hypocrital.
Why not answer the points I made and show me what he does is a justified use of freedom of speech? I know sarcasm is easy, how about a little structured debate?