David Irving's trial was short and straight to the point. The Austrian judge hearing the case did not accept Irving's claim that now he does understand that the gas chambers did exist in Auschwitz and that he had learned a lot in the 17 years since his inflammatory speeches on Austrian soil.
After Irving pleaded guilty to the Holocaust denial charges - which was expected - the judge sentenced him to three years of imprisonment under the current Austrian Holocaust denial laws. The severity of the sentence was surprising; at least I was surprised.
That Irving is rotten and I daresay insane/senile (you have to be one or both to purposedly return to a country where there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest) is no news. And I do not believe for a minute that he really changed his mind and his heart about the existence of the gas chambers. After all, when reporters asked him about the guilty plea, he replied: "I have no choice."
Still, he is being incarcerated for being ignorant, malicious and prejudiced. Is that right?
A prison term is not the right answer, not the right tactics when dealing with Holocaust deniers. Now, Irving will be a larger-than-life hero in the revisionist, anti-semitic and neo-Nazi world. And I think we already have our hands full with other idiots such as Ernst Zündel and Arthur Butz (by the way, how does Northwestern put up with that? Can't they get rid of him or something? I am not sure if free speech of such bigoted nature as Holocaust denial has any place in an institution of the caliber of Northwestern University. And has he been blacklisted by David Horowitz? Just curious). We don't need any more martyrs.
Not to mention that the timing could not be worse. We're still trying to come to terms with the violence that erupted (and is still happening) with the Muhammad cartoons. It is only a matter of time until the president of Iran, who is known for his Holocaust denial views and undisputable lunacy/ignorance, issues some sort of statement accusing the west of double standards when handling free speech.
And how will we be able to argue back? Those Muslims displeased and enraged by the cartoons will say that if Irving can be sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust, then why can't those behind the publication of the cartoons be decapitated?
Irving, though, will have a comfortable time during this prison term. His business will flourish, he will sell his books like never before, he will receive thousands of donations and letters of support, he will be invited as a guest speaker to countless events and he will, more than ever, speak his hatred and his bias. Sadly, he might have won this one.
February 21, 2006
JAIL TIME
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
who cares he is a piece of dirt
Mikey I know how you feel about Irving, and you know how I feel about him. My post was about free speech though...
has its limitations
Mikey - honestly, I know that we would all like to be able to tell the next person to shut up when we don't like what he/she is saying. But even though it is a natural reaction, the price is too high.
Because in the end, who draws the line? Who is to say what can be said and not be said? Better to be as informed and as educated and as open-minded as possible, and thus make your own decisions about fairness and justice, then to have people deciding for me what is okay and what is not okay as a topic of discussion.
Being an ignoramus, as Irving is, is not criminal. It is sad and unnerving and disgusting, but not a crime.
That's my view at least.
whether you likeb it or not we all have restrictions on our freedom of speech. I can't go upto a black man and call him a N**** , because that is rascist and incitement to hatred and likely to cause unrest. In the same way irvings opinions are rascist and incitement to riot/hatred .I have freedom of speech until i offend someone else in such a way that there is offended.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1715176,00.html
To anonymous - thank you for your comment. I welcome you to my humble blog here.
I disagree though. If you are familiar with my previous postings, you know that I have nothing for Irving but despise. I think he is wrong from beginning to end.
But these Holocaust denial laws serve no real purpose. They function in Austria and Germany in no small part because these countries have a collective sense of guilt (like it or not, they do) and it might be some sort of atonement for them.
But in truth, they do not put an end to any of this silly speech sponsored by idiots such as Irving. They actually bring what is plain ignorance and bigotry to a whole different level of discussion - that of freedom of speech.
I am not saying Irving and others should be tolerated, quite the contrary. I am merely saying that to jail him is not the right solution in the fight against anti-semitism and holocaust denial.
Jailing someone for racial slurs is also likely to cause unrest anyhow. Jailing anyone for speaking his/her mind indicates a lack of preparedness in handling a debate such as this. It also shows fear that the past is not totally put to rest, that educational and awareness efforts since the Holocaust amount to nothing sunstantially tangible in terms of tolerance.
In any case, your last comment was: "I have freedom of speech until i offend someone else in such a way that there is offended."
I am not sure where you are writing me from, but in the United States freedom of speech is not limited by one's perception of what is offensive. While that may be a little disheartening for most people, free speech here can only be legitimately curbed in cases of "clear and present danger", obscenity, and a few other instances. Also, there is the issue of advocacy of ideas versus that of advocacy of action.
In Irving's case, he is advocating an idea - a horrid one, to be sure, but nevertheless an idea, or theory, that the gas chambers never existed etc etc. He is not saying, "let's go and perpetrate mass killings".
If Irving said, "kill, slash and burn," I'd be the first to call for his incarceration (preferrably in a mental hospital, by the way). But so far he has said: "I do not believe" or "I do not agree".
If you believe Irving should be doing jail time for speaking his lunatic mind, then you probably also agree with the Muslim world reaction to the cartoons. Once again, the parallel is inevitable. If you see things in terms of what is offensive and what is not and you take them to an emotional level, then it must make sense to you that they are calling for beheadings and burning consulates and issuing death threats and whatnot.
That is why I say - the best way to fight Irvings anywhere is to have accurate historical and scientific data to prove them wrong at every turn, and ostracize them quietly.
Mikey I read this piece already. I maintain my position though.
You have to understand that on a personal level I am not sorry for Irving the man. I am just not in agreement with the decision on free speech grounds, not to mention that I also believe it sends the wrong message to other deniers and neo-Nazis.
Post a Comment