http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_...olocaust_denial

 

Trial Opens for Accused Holocaust Denier

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

 

VIENNA, Austria - A right-wing British historian goes on trial Monday on charges of denying the Holocaust occurred ? a crime punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment in this country once run by the Nazis.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The trial of David Irving opens amid fresh ? and fierce ? debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.

 

Irving, 67, has been in custody since his arrest in November on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews. An eight-member jury and a panel of three judges will hear the proceedings, which officials said could produce a verdict as early as Monday.

 

Within two weeks of his arrest, Irving asserted through his lawyer that he now acknowledges the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers.

 

The historian had tried to win release on bail, but a Vienna court refused, saying it considered him a flight risk.

 

His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said last month the Third Reich historian was getting up to 300 pieces of fan mail a week from supporters around the world, and that while in detention he was writing his memoirs under the working title, "Irving's War."

 

Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in the southern Austrian province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989 and charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

 

In the past, however, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish population on such a massive scale.

 

"What was he doing in Austria? God only knows. Possibly looking for an audience," Austrian state television said in a pre-trial commentary.

 

Vienna's national court, where the trial is being held, ordered the balcony gallery closed to prevent projectiles from being thrown down at the bench, the newspaper Die Presse reported Sunday.

 

It quoted officials as saying they were bracing for Irving's supporters to give him the Nazi salute or shout out pro-Hitler slogans during the trial, which will continue into Tuesday if a verdict is not forthcoming on Monday.

 

Irving is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust, and has contended most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.

 

In 2000, Irving sued the American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court, but lost. The presiding judge in that case wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist."

 

Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.

 

In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.

the man's a dumbass no doubt but this is illegal?

Yes, in Gerrmany, Austria and other European countries this is illegal...

I don't know, it just seems as if the guy thinks he has enough evidence to prove it, and he doesn't believe...

 

Well, it seems wrong to prosecute the guy. As long as he's not hurting anyone, I don't care what your beliefs are. I think punishing this guy is pushing it a bit. Also, I don't agree with racists, but they should have the right to express their opinion. They shouldn't go to jail for it (unless we're talking about acting on said opinions).

 

I just don't see how prison is going to "cure" this guy. And it just seems to be going overboard to punish him for beliefs he has based on evidence he claims to have.

I don't know, it just seems as if the guy thinks he has enough evidence to prove it, and he doesn't believe...

 

Well, it seems wrong to prosecute the guy. As long as he's not hurting anyone, I don't care what your beliefs are. I think punishing this guy is pushing it a bit. Also, I don't agree with racists, but they should have the right to express their opinion. They shouldn't go to jail for it (unless we're talking about acting on said opinions).

 

I just don't see how prison is going to "cure" this guy. And it just seems to be going overboard to punish him for beliefs he has based on evidence he claims to have.

 

 

Nazism was a reality that caused alot of death and suffering all around Europe. It's easy to allow Nazi's to express their opinion in the US because Americans never lived through Nazi domination. You can dismiss them as morons and move on with life...you do not believe they will ever get enough support to mean anything on a national level. Europeans have more fear of such ideas...and rightfully so. The guy belongs in jail IMO.

I don't know, it just seems as if the guy thinks he has enough evidence to prove it, and he doesn't believe...

 

Well, it seems wrong to prosecute the guy. As long as he's not hurting anyone, I don't care what your beliefs are. I think punishing this guy is pushing it a bit. Also, I don't agree with racists, but they should have the right to express their opinion. They shouldn't go to jail for it (unless we're talking about acting on said opinions).

 

I just don't see how prison is going to "cure" this guy. And it just seems to be going overboard to punish him for beliefs he has based on evidence he claims to have.

 

 

Nazism was a reality that caused alot of death and suffering all around Europe. It's easy to allow Nazi's to express their opinion in the US because Americans never lived through Nazi domination. You can dismiss them as morons and move on with life...you do not believe they will ever get enough support to mean anything on a national level. Europeans have more fear of such ideas...and rightfully so. The guy belongs in jail IMO.

 

Here's my whole point, and I believe this is covered in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the Human Declaration of Human Rights, and it's that protected speech is preferable to unprotected speech.

 

People should be able to say what they want, write what they want and express themselves how they want. I agree with you, to the extent that if you have a militant group or some extremist neo-Nazi's doing illegal things, bust them and put them in jail.

 

However, that old chestnut about freedom of speech not protecting the speech we like but the speech we don't like, holds true. It's better for those types of opinions to be out there and for people to freely say, "That's idiotic." Than for it to be suppression. And to me suppression is really dangerous.

 

Because if you suppress these ideas I think it could bite you in ass in these sense that these ideas obviously exist. In the case if Nazism instead of being that funny little group everyone laughs at (ala' the Ku Klux Klan here) you have these people going underground and doing it. Essentially you're making it a ripe ground for that group to take a us vs. them mentality to the extreme.

 

Another thing is, when you start suppressing ideas, where do you stop? I mean, do you stop at just Nazism? So, should they outlaw Mein Kampf, too? I just think in a truly free society you want to sh*tty opinions along with the good ones so an informed listener can hear the sh*tty opinion and say, "No I don't like that."

 

Plus it's a waste of money to go through this whole trial and keep the guy in jail for putting out racist, outdated propaganda. And if we did things based on past hurts than we should have locked up that whole Southern government that came up with the "seperate but equal" crap after the Civil War. Heck, then we also need to find a system to give out reperations in our own country. Not to mention the Japanese we put in internment camps during the latter half of WWII.

Here's my whole thing on this.

 

I'm conservative. I usually think people are given too light of a sentencing (or none at all) for things.

 

I'm also Jewish. I went to Poland and saw the camps, Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Treblinka...I saw them. And I was there with survivors. I don't understand how anyone could deny the Holocaust.

 

HOWEVER, in this case, the guy only said what he wanted to say. I understand that in Europe it's illegal and I suppose (I could be wrong, maybe you could tell me if I'm on to something here Sandro) it's because essentially Hitler started the same way, simply preaching his anti-Semitic beliefs. Also, not to sound like an ass but it may have been instituted in the beginning to sort of throw the Jews a bone, so to speak, much like Mein Kampf is banned in Germany. But I don't think it should be illegal, in the US or Europe or anywhere, for simply speaking it. The second you act on it though, that's a different story.

I agree that the right to free speech should be protected, but with neo-Nazi's it s a tough line to draw, since most of what they preach is violence.

 

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

I agree that the right to free speech should be protected, but with neo-Nazi's it s a tough line to draw, since most of what they preach is violence.

 

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

 

Ok...good point. I suppose if what they're saying is that all Jews/blacks/non-Aryans should die, then yeah, arrest them.

 

If they're saying that all Jews/blacks/non-Aryans are the problem of everything and that they suck, or that the Holocaust didn't happen, whatever.

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

 

I'm not sure I see how denying the holocaust ever occurred, calling gas chambers 'a hoax,' and arguing that most of the people in concentration camps died of disease can be compared to a death threat.

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

 

I'm not sure I see how denying the holocaust ever occurred, calling gas chambers 'a hoax,' and arguing that most of the people in concentration camps died of disease can be compared to a death threat.

 

Well, since he's calling it a hoax, and you don't have any evidence that it occured, other than eyewitness testimony which could be faked... I mean, you weren't there, how do you know it happened?

 

I'm playing devils advocate here, because obviously I don't agree with the guy, but there are limits on what we actually know and what we take to believe on faith. Anything we haven't experiences we take on faith. My dad says he had McDondalds for lunch, I don't know that he did. It could be he had Burger King. It could be he's lying. I don't KNOW he actually had McDonalds.

 

Our shortcomings in knowing things outside of our actual experience, there's a whole branch of philosophy about this (Epistemology) that says you only have Justified True Beliefs if and only if 1. it's true 2. you believe it's true and 3. you're rationally justified in your belief. I would argue that this guy's contention with with #3 and he'll say the holocaust was faked.

 

Other than that he's a nut. But as for a nut behind bars, I'm not so sure he should qualify.

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

 

I'm not sure I see how denying the holocaust ever occurred, calling gas chambers 'a hoax,' and arguing that most of the people in concentration camps died of disease can be compared to a death threat.

 

Well, since he's calling it a hoax, and you don't have any evidence that it occured, other than eyewitness testimony which could be faked... I mean, you weren't there, how do you know it happened?

 

I'm playing devils advocate here, because obviously I don't agree with the guy, but there are limits on what we actually know and what we take to believe on faith. Anything we haven't experiences we take on faith. My dad says he had McDondalds for lunch, I don't know that he did. It could be he had Burger King. It could be he's lying. I don't KNOW he actually had McDonalds.

 

Our shortcomings in knowing things outside of our actual experience, there's a whole branch of philosophy about this (Epistemology) that says you only have Justified True Beliefs if and only if 1. it's true 2. you believe it's true and 3. you're rationally justified in your belief. I would argue that this guy's contention with with #3 and he'll say the holocaust was faked.

 

Other than that he's a nut. But as for a nut behind bars, I'm not so sure he should qualify.

I'm not gonna get all offended since you're playing devil's advocate.

 

What what you accept as evidence in support for your dad having had McDonald's for lunch? His receipt? A picture? A sworn testimony from the person who gave him his food? There's all kinds of evidence from the Holocaust - pictures, written documents, objects, sworn testimonies - in support of the Holocaust having happened.

 

As far as the philosophical part, step one is actually if a person believes that something is true and step two is that it is true. Anyway, besides that, you can look at the Gettier problem in response to that. That is, those 3 conditions aren't sufficient for having a justified true belief as knowledge. The easiest case is that Smith applies for a job and thinks Jones will get it. He also thinks that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. So he decides that the man who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket. Smith gets the job, not Jones, but Smith actually has ten coins in his pocket. So Smith's though that the man who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket is justified and is true, but isn't knowledge.

 

But anyway, your (and therefore, my) tangent about philosophy is irrelevant, really. Let the man believe what he wants to believe for whatever reasons he wants to believe it. Let everyone live that way. Just don't preach killing or death (or harm anyone or anything).

You say that they should be allowed to say what they want but get arrested if they act on it? Because basically they want everyone that is not 'Aryan' to die. Are death threats protected under free speech?

 

I'm not sure I see how denying the holocaust ever occurred, calling gas chambers 'a hoax,' and arguing that most of the people in concentration camps died of disease can be compared to a death threat.

 

I wasn't saying this in regards to this particular case, but to counter that Nazi's should be free to preach their beliefs. It could very well be that since he is denying the Holocaust he also has affiliations with neo-Nazi groups that have more dangerous beliefs. Which is very likely the case...the article here does not present all the evidence and does not go too much into detail on what this guy has done and what he believes in.

What what you accept as evidence in support for your dad having had McDonald's for lunch? His receipt? A picture? A sworn testimony from the person who gave him his food? There's all kinds of evidence from the Holocaust - pictures, written documents, objects, sworn testimonies - in support of the Holocaust having happened.

 

As far as the philosophical part, step one is actually if a person believes that something is true and step two is that it is true. Anyway, besides that, you can look at the Gettier problem in response to that. That is, those 3 conditions aren't sufficient for having a justified true belief as knowledge. The easiest case is that Smith applies for a job and thinks Jones will get it. He also thinks that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. So he decides that the man who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket. Smith gets the job, not Jones, but Smith actually has ten coins in his pocket. So Smith's though that the man who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket is justified and is true, but isn't knowledge.

 

But anyway, your (and therefore, my) tangent about philosophy is irrelevant, really. Let the man believe what he wants to believe for whatever reasons he wants to believe it. Let everyone live that way. Just don't preach killing or death (or harm anyone or anything).

 

 

The philosophical part was for Shaqman alone. And as for the Gettier example, you're right. It asks that JTB Accounts of Knowledge be extended, however how it be extended it open to debate and nobody, I mean NOBODY has a sufficient condition that makes everyone happy.

 

However, I believe he thinks Jews were internment camps, but he doesn't believe the Nazi's killed them. And, you know how these nuts minds work, he'd just argue those death orders and paperwork were faked by the Jews to get sympathy. His main argument seems to be that they died of disease and not the gas chambers/ovens.

 

As for your last line, it's been my point the whole time. Until they actually cross the line and try to do something stupid we have to just be vigilant in opininon only. Treat them like any other "terrorist" group and keep an eye on them, try to make sure they don't harm anyone, but other than that, you have to let them have their opinion. It seems to me better to allow ignorant statements than suppress them, because then you have the government deciding what qualifies as ignorant and I don't think anybody wants that.

My tour guide at Auschwitz told us a story about this one man that was part of his group a few years ago. He continually denied the things he was saying. The tour guide offered to show him documented proof. He said it could be faked. He said he can show him pictures of the places. He said they could be faked. And he went on and on about the things that proved the Holocaust really did happen, but nothing he did convinced the man. He had an 'excuse' for everything. It just amazes that people could be that blind/ignorant especially after visiting a place like that. But the fact is there are people who do believe it never occurred

 

Damn postmodernism in History...But like Buckeye said you weren't there so we actually have no true evidence so to speak that the Holocaust occurred. (although it obviously did)

 

As for this guy I thought I read earlier today he got 3 years after pleading guilty and admitting the gas chambers existed. I personally see the guy as an idiot but he should be able to voice his opinion no matter how 'controversial'. When words turn into action is where it goes too far and must be stopped. He wasn't threatening anyone so three years in jail seems a little excessive.

As for your last line, it's been my point the whole time. Until they actually cross the line and try to do something stupid we have to just be vigilant in opininon only. Treat them like any other "terrorist" group and keep an eye on them, try to make sure they don't harm anyone, but other than that, you have to let them have their opinion. It seems to me better to allow ignorant statements than suppress them, because then you have the government deciding what qualifies as ignorant and I don't think anybody wants that.

 

 

Yup, bottom line.

 

We actually agree. :o

The very idea that any government can jail a man for expressing his beliefs is absolutely offensive to me, no matter how ridiculous those beliefs may be. It's not like he yelled fire in a crowded movie theater and caused a stampede.

The very idea that any government can jail a man for expressing his beliefs is absolutely offensive to me, no matter how ridiculous those beliefs may be.

 

 

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Maybe things are different in Europe, but I can't imagine this ever happening in America. As long he's not inciting violence, he should be allowed to think and say whatever he wants.

Although I see where sandro is coming from, doesnt arresting them kind of help them? It gives them the legitimacy of government censorship. Cant they tell young impressible youths that it's clear that something must be true or else the government wouldnt fight so hard to censor it?

As for your last line, it's been my point the whole time. Until they actually cross the line and try to do something stupid we have to just be vigilant in opinion only. Treat them like any other "terrorist" group and keep an eye on them, try to make sure they don't harm anyone, but other than that, you have to let them have their opinion. It seems to me better to allow ignorant statements than suppress them, because then you have the government deciding what qualifies as ignorant and I don't think anybody wants that.

 

 

I'll agree with that.

My tour guide at Auschwitz told us a story about this one man that was part of his group a few years ago. He continually denied the things he was saying. The tour guide offered to show him documented proof. He said it could be faked. He said he can show him pictures of the places. He said they could be faked. And he went on and on about the things that proved the Holocaust really did happen, but nothing he did convinced the man. He had an 'excuse' for everything. It just amazes that people could be that blind/ignorant especially after visiting a place like that. But the fact is there are people who do believe it never occurred.

 

 

See, the problem with this guy is why did he even go on the tour? When you have an agenda, ugh, I don't dig that at all. Especially to go to the camps themselves and carry skeptical microphone. I'm really surprised they didn't kick him off the tour.

 

He has a right to express himself, but it takes some stones to go to the actual place and deny, deny, deny. :banghead

If someone can be punished for having Nazi beliefs, then people who are communists should be put in prison as well, since communism has cost countless lives in various places around the world.

If someone can be punished for having Nazi beliefs, then people who are communists should be put in prison as well, since communism has cost countless lives in various places around the world.

 

 

And gangbangers and people who adamantly talk about using drugs, etc. I mean, if you're going to throw someone in jail just for believing something why not do it to people who smoke pot or crack or do cocaine? I mean, the war on drugs has cost people their lives so we should be able to lock up Richard Pryor for talking about cocaine use.

 

See, it's a crazy slippery slope and I don't think it works.

Now Islam desires the same protection as the Holocaust. I'm all for it as soon as all the Islamic nations pass and enforce laws to protect Christianity and Judaism. Oddly, that didn't get mentioned as part of the OIC's elimination of a double standard.

 

Pakistan

Published: 02/22/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

OIC asks EU to legislate to protect Islam

By Shahid Hussain, Correspondent

 

Islamabad: Citing the jailing of a British historian in Austria for denying the Holocaust, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu here on Tuesday urged Europe to legislate similar safeguards against maligning Islam in the name of freedom of expression.

 

"We need the same protection from European law," the chief of the 57-nation Islamic body said while talking to reporters following a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

 

Right-wing historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court on Monday on charges he had denied extermination of six millions Jews by the Nazis during World War II.

 

There "should be no double standards", he said, referring to the publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in the European newspapers that triggered outrage and violent protests across the Muslim world.

 

Meanwhile, shopkeepers shut their doors in Barwand town in South Waziristan tribal region to protest the cartoons.

 

About 2,000 people chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Denmark" as they rallied and burned flags of Denmark, where the caricatures were first printed.

 

Ihsanoglu said the Muslim community wanted European laws to protect their feelings and sensitivities so that freedom of expression was not abused for mud-slinging on their faith and the Prophet.

 

Prime Minister Aziz said after the meeting that he had formally requested the secretary-general to convene an extraordinary session of foreign ministers of OIC member states to evolve a common strategy to combat the defamation of Islam.

 

Aziz said Pakistan would send a bipartisan parliamentary delegation to Brussels to meet members of the European parliament to mobilise support for appropriate legislation against attempts to ridicule religions and prophets. The delegation on its way back would stop at Jeddah to brief the OIC secretary-general about discussions in Brussels.

 

"We genuinely believe in interfaith harmony and feel Islamophobia will not help the cause of anyone in the world," the prime minister said. Ihsanoglu and Foreign Minister Khurshid M. Kasuri also held separate talks on restructuring the OIC and implementing a programme focusing on combating Islamophobia.

 

With additional inputs from AP

Gulf News