Irving gets three years' jail ifor Holocaust denial

[octane]

By Ruth Elkins in Vienna
Published: 21 February 2006

David Irving entered the historic Vienna courtroom with a cheeky swagger yesterday morning and left in the evening a stooped and defeated man.

The 67-year-old was sentenced to three years in jail by an Austrian judge for denying, in two speeches he made 16 years ago, the existence of the gas chambers of the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews.

"I am deeply shocked and will appeal," a stunned Irving told reporters as he was bundled out of court by armed riot police officers. There was uproar from his supporters. "Stay strong, David!" shouted Richard Edmunds, who had flown over from London for Irving's day in court. "Good luck to you!" He too was bundled out of court.

Irving was not wearing his £2,700 pinstripe Savile Row suit as he had promised. The shabby navy blazer he did choose only reinforced the fact that this was a day when nothing would go right for him.

With a P G Wodehouse novel stuffed in his pocket to stave off boredom, he brandished a copy of his book, Hitler's War, for the ruck of photographers and television crews outside the court. "I've learnt a lot during the last 17 years," he declared to the reporters. "I've changed my views."

But, despite blustering optimistically into the high-ceilinged courtroom, he was soon thrust on the defensive by a particularly stern-tongued judge, Peter Liebtreu. And his admission that he had changed his mind was not enough to save him. The eight-man jury took less than two hours to deliver a unanimous verdict that the British revisionist historian should be imprisoned. The judge then ruled that three years, rather than the maximum sentence of 10 years, was appropriate.

It was still a body blow for the pale and tired-looking defendant. "Do you understand your sentence, Mr Irving?" the judge asked. "I'm not sure I do," Irving replied.

The judgment hung on whether the jury would believe his show of remorse and his dramatic U-turn. "I'm not a Holocaust denier," Irving had even told reporters as the court opened.

The charges stem from two lectures given in Austria in November 1989. Mr Irving said the gas chambers at Auschwitz extermination camp did not exist, that Hitler held a "protective hand over the Jews" and that the Holocaust was a myth.

Judge Liebtreu examined statements Irving had made to two audiences of far-right extremists and supporters in Leoben and Vienna in 1989. His stern, often mocking, cross-examination soon forced Irving to abandon some of his more controversial statements. Judge Liebtreu read out part of one of Irving's speeches in which he claimed that Holocaust witnesses were "cases for psychiatric treatment".

"Do you still believe this?" Judge Liebtreu asked. The defendant was silent for a moment. Eventually, he replied: "I regret that formulation."

"Do you take it back?" the judge persevered. "I regret it," Irving replied.

Irving said sorry and expressed regret for many other statements. He accepted now, he said, that there had been gas chambers in Auschwitz and that millions of Jews had indeed been killed by the Nazis, but he continued to play with numbers. "Last week, on the occasion of the Dresden bombing," he said, "I knelt in my cell and prayed to remember the 100,000 civilians killed there."

The accepted historical casualty figure is closer to 35,000. Irving has traditionally exaggerated the numbers of Germans killed in the war and played down the numbers of Holocaust victims. Even yesterday, pleading for his freedom, he stressed "the figure of six million killed Jews is just symbolic".

The state prosecutor, Michael Klackl, remained unimpressed. He called Irving a "dangerous falsifier of history" and a man who often played the role of a repentant sinner.

"You must remember," he told the court, "David Irving only uses words, but these words are used by right-wing extremists to give them an ideological position." Summing up, he said: "Mr Irving might have said he has changed his views, but that has all been a show for you."

Irving's defence lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the jury that the defendant was a self-made man who, in order to be successful, had to provoke, and in doing so, had stepped over the boundaries of taste. "He is not the youngest of men. He has a sick wife at home and he is a foreigner," Mr Kresbach said. "Is the man before you really dangerous, or is he a lonely and somewhat desperate 67-year-old who has said some terrible things?"

Irving, who has been in jail since his arrest on 11 November last year, told the court he has an annual income of £57,000 and draws a £20-a-week pension. He admitted that the prospect of a prolonged jail sentence was worrying. "I have a 12-year-old daughter," he said. "I have great worries about the future."

Incarceration in Vienna's Josefstadt prison will mean a harsh change of lifestyle for Irving, who complained recently to an Italian newspaper that his Mayfair living room was at least twice the size of the dining room in which 70 prisoners had to eat each day. He said that all he wanted to do was to go home to his "sick wife and daughter".

At lunch in the court canteen, one Holocaust survivor was eating a plate of spaghetti. He talked about the spell he survived in Treblinka and the 17 family members he lost during the war. "I am here because I am a part of the history this man denies," he said. "Even if they sentence him to a one euro fine for what he has said didn't happen, it will be a judgment which will go down in history."

By evening, Irving was a broken man, his career at an end. Distraught and stunned, he was escorted from the courtroom to return to his 19th-century cell.

Why freedom of speech has never been an absolute right

By Robert Verkaik

The right to freedom of speech has never been an absolute right to say anything.

Yesterday's conviction and sentence of David Irving also demonstrates that the limits on freedom of expression can depend on where the speaker makes their comments.

In Germany and Austria, where the Holocaust was dreamt up, their criminal laws make it an offence to deny that that historical event took place. There are few other democracies that have felt it necessary to enact these draconian laws. Irving made his statements 17 years ago.

In Britain we still rely on principles of criminal law to bring cases to court. This month the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza was sentenced to seven years for inciting racial hatred and Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was unsuccessfully prosecuted for making accusations about murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

But in the last year the Government has cited the need to bring in more laws to curtail our freedom of speech. We are moving closer to Austria where a personal opinion of a historical event can not only lead to a jail sentence but attracts the oxygen of publicity to a very odious point of view.

David Irving entered the historic Vienna courtroom with a cheeky swagger yesterday morning and left in the evening a stooped and defeated man.

The 67-year-old was sentenced to three years in jail by an Austrian judge for denying, in two speeches he made 16 years ago, the existence of the gas chambers of the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews.

"I am deeply shocked and will appeal," a stunned Irving told reporters as he was bundled out of court by armed riot police officers. There was uproar from his supporters. "Stay strong, David!" shouted Richard Edmunds, who had flown over from London for Irving's day in court. "Good luck to you!" He too was bundled out of court.

Irving was not wearing his £2,700 pinstripe Savile Row suit as he had promised. The shabby navy blazer he did choose only reinforced the fact that this was a day when nothing would go right for him.

With a P G Wodehouse novel stuffed in his pocket to stave off boredom, he brandished a copy of his book, Hitler's War, for the ruck of photographers and television crews outside the court. "I've learnt a lot during the last 17 years," he declared to the reporters. "I've changed my views."

But, despite blustering optimistically into the high-ceilinged courtroom, he was soon thrust on the defensive by a particularly stern-tongued judge, Peter Liebtreu. And his admission that he had changed his mind was not enough to save him. The eight-man jury took less than two hours to deliver a unanimous verdict that the British revisionist historian should be imprisoned. The judge then ruled that three years, rather than the maximum sentence of 10 years, was appropriate.

It was still a body blow for the pale and tired-looking defendant. "Do you understand your sentence, Mr Irving?" the judge asked. "I'm not sure I do," Irving replied.

The judgment hung on whether the jury would believe his show of remorse and his dramatic U-turn. "I'm not a Holocaust denier," Irving had even told reporters as the court opened.

The charges stem from two lectures given in Austria in November 1989. Mr Irving said the gas chambers at Auschwitz extermination camp did not exist, that Hitler held a "protective hand over the Jews" and that the Holocaust was a myth.

Judge Liebtreu examined statements Irving had made to two audiences of far-right extremists and supporters in Leoben and Vienna in 1989. His stern, often mocking, cross-examination soon forced Irving to abandon some of his more controversial statements. Judge Liebtreu read out part of one of Irving's speeches in which he claimed that Holocaust witnesses were "cases for psychiatric treatment".

"Do you still believe this?" Judge Liebtreu asked. The defendant was silent for a moment. Eventually, he replied: "I regret that formulation."

"Do you take it back?" the judge persevered. "I regret it," Irving replied.

Irving said sorry and expressed regret for many other statements. He accepted now, he said, that there had been gas chambers in Auschwitz and that millions of Jews had indeed been killed by the Nazis, but he continued to play with numbers. "Last week, on the occasion of the Dresden bombing," he said, "I knelt in my cell and prayed to remember the 100,000 civilians killed there."

The accepted historical casualty figure is closer to 35,000. Irving has traditionally exaggerated the numbers of Germans killed in the war and played down the numbers of Holocaust victims. Even yesterday, pleading for his freedom, he stressed "the figure of six million killed Jews is just symbolic".

The state prosecutor, Michael Klackl, remained unimpressed. He called Irving a "dangerous falsifier of history" and a man who often played the role of a repentant sinner.

"You must remember," he told the court, "David Irving only uses words, but these words are used by right-wing extremists to give them an ideological position." Summing up, he said: "Mr Irving might have said he has changed his views, but that has all been a show for you."

Irving's defence lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the jury that the defendant was a self-made man who, in order to be successful, had to provoke, and in doing so, had stepped over the boundaries of taste. "He is not the youngest of men. He has a sick wife at home and he is a foreigner," Mr Kresbach said. "Is the man before you really dangerous, or is he a lonely and somewhat desperate 67-year-old who has said some terrible things?"

Irving, who has been in jail since his arrest on 11 November last year, told the court he has an annual income of £57,000 and draws a £20-a-week pension. He admitted that the prospect of a prolonged jail sentence was worrying. "I have a 12-year-old daughter," he said. "I have great worries about the future."

Incarceration in Vienna's Josefstadt prison will mean a harsh change of lifestyle for Irving, who complained recently to an Italian newspaper that his Mayfair living room was at least twice the size of the dining room in which 70 prisoners had to eat each day. He said that all he wanted to do was to go home to his "sick wife and daughter".

At lunch in the court canteen, one Holocaust survivor was eating a plate of spaghetti. He talked about the spell he survived in Treblinka and the 17 family members he lost during the war. "I am here because I am a part of the history this man denies," he said. "Even if they sentence him to a one euro fine for what he has said didn't happen, it will be a judgment which will go down in history."

By evening, Irving was a broken man, his career at an end. Distraught and stunned, he was escorted from the courtroom to return to his 19th-century cell.

Why freedom of speech has never been an absolute right

By Robert Verkaik

The right to freedom of speech has never been an absolute right to say anything.

Yesterday's conviction and sentence of David Irving also demonstrates that the limits on freedom of expression can depend on where the speaker makes their comments.

In Germany and Austria, where the Holocaust was dreamt up, their criminal laws make it an offence to deny that that historical event took place. There are few other democracies that have felt it necessary to enact these draconian laws. Irving made his statements 17 years ago.

In Britain we still rely on principles of criminal law to bring cases to court. This month the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza was sentenced to seven years for inciting racial hatred and Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was unsuccessfully prosecuted for making accusations about murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

But in the last year the Government has cited the need to bring in more laws to curtail our freedom of speech. We are moving closer to Austria where a personal opinion of a historical event can not only lead to a jail sentence but attracts the oxygen of publicity to a very odious point of view.

Original article

Fucking ridiculous.

Thoughts?

[stinkwheel]

I think the 'facts' surrounding much of what went on under the Nazis are far from as concrete as is often made out. Propoganda coming from both the Allies, the Axis powers and later the Jews themselves has clouded the issues to the extent where I doubt we will ever be in full posession of the 'facts'.

Even limited archaeological research into gas chamber sites and the presence of zyclon-b at some of the concentration camp sites has proved inconclusive.

The fact that concentration camps existed and that a great many Jews were killed is indesputable. Exactly how many, where and in what manner is something I suspect will always depend on who is telling you and their personal agenda.

As far as I was aware, Irving did not directly refute that the extermination of Jews was carried out at Auschwitz but questioned if the popularly held view that there were huge gas chambers was entirely accurate.

His views represent one end of a sliding scale of the 'truth', the claims made by the state of Israel represent the other. Both parties are well known for their skilled propoganda. The truth is somewhere in the middle ground.

EDIT: I just realised I didn't give my oppinion on the jail sentance. I disagree with it. If the counter-arguments to what he said are so strong, better to openly ridicule his standpoint and destroy his claims with rational arguments and objective evidence.

Perhaps have a law that you must back-up your statements with regard to the halocaust in open, public debate rather than ban certain statements outright.

Jailing the guy seems very "It's my ball and if you don't agree with me no-one is playing, so there!." to me.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[octane]

Personally I was just incredulous that the guy got jailed for what could be an opinon on a historical event that could be construed as anti-semitic remarks made 16 years ago.

[FreshAL]

It's ridiculous that he's being sent to prison for something he SAID.

He didn't encourage people to do it again, just voiced his opinion.

OK, so what he said is probably wrong, but Free Speech comes with the drawback of having to listen to things you might not like. We all got very excited about how we had the "right" to publish those Mohammed cartoons in Europe. Surely this means he has the right to say whatever he wants?

I really dislike the idea of controlling what people can say. Dangerously close to controlling what people can think.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

[kal9001]

i swa a program onit ages ago, some guy goin on about wether or not there were gas chambers, as no gas has ever been found and the Nazis managed to keep it well under wraps...thsi show pointed to ONE soilid piece of evidance, an invoise from one of the camps was ordering several "gas seal" doors, i.e. heavy doors that would not leak gas. and also that there have been rooms found that were made air tight. put the two together and they were ether suffocating them, or gassing them.
____________________
Anyone stupid enough to think we will drag a load of wooden horses full of soldiers into our city is certanley stupid enough to drag all of ours into theirs!

[Nath]

[colin1]

With the muslim cartoons, editors said it was worth annoying muslims to the point that they get shot rioting, for the principle of freedom of speech.

Wherever possible its nice to have freedom of speech to some extent but there have to be limits.

The reason questioning the holocaust is illegal in austria and germany, is that after wwII there wasa real possibility that nazi types could run the countries again.

There are some in parliaments but not in government.
Nowadays I'm not sure the ennough of a threat to justify the law still being on the books.

England has long been a place where foreign exiles, have plotted to overthrow their home government and we grant them asylum as they are being 'persecuted' in their home country for their activities against their government.

In fragile states they need to be able to control speech and thoughts to avoid instability and rebellion and terrorism

Freedom of speech is fine for us but not everyone is ready for it.

I think sending Irving to prison is just going to make him more influential with neo nazis. The martyr effect. His book sales are gonna go through the roof. Nath is curious, I am curious and so are quite a few people. I have heard his books are more rhetoric than factual and a cracking read rather than the work of real historians which start with the facts and try to make a good story. Irving starts with a good story and trys to back it up with a good argument with a few related facts thrown in to make it look convincing.

I think its quite possible he may have some things right and have an interesting alternative perspective but I dont think the truth lies in the middle between him and conventional thinking. The truth is a lot closer to conventional thinking.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[octane]

[Villers]

A very intriguing post.

Is this Austrian law the only of its kind relating to history in the developed world?

When I studied history (to a limit degree) it was emphasised that a lot of what we learn from history is based purely upon the opinion of the bystander. In cases where there are no solid facts to be had, historians look towards writings, newspaper reports, witness testimonies and how valued these accounts can be - as a lot of these are biased in one way or another.

An opinion is simply that, events and reactions that lead to a person having a particular stance or belief on a topic. Here in the 'allies part' of Europe we are taught from day one that the Nazi empire was deeply evil and always portrayed as the baddies. The governments have devised many conspiracies and propaganda to get people behind their cause. For a man to believe or have the opinion that perhaps events didnt turn out as officials believed it to, to be jailed for his opinion is disgusting. Its not far from the government to declare that binge drinking is destroying the country, and thats that - anyone who denies this fact will be burned for heresy.

In short, a bit harsh to jail a 68 year old bloke for something that happens every day in one form or another.


____________________
RS125 > CBR6 > SV650S > ZX636R > GSX1300RZ Hayabusa > 06 RSVR Mille > SV1000S > Street Triple 765 RS

[Nath]