Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

[cmotherofpirl]

Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

The Associated Press
Thursday, November 17, 2005; 10:49 AM



VIENNA, Austria -- British historian David Irving was arrested last week in southern Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, the Interior Ministry said Thursday. Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in Styria province, said police Maj. Rudolf Golia, an Interior Ministry spokesman. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.

Irving was detained on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws that make Holocaust denial a crime, Golia said. The accusation stemmed from speeches Irving delivered that year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.

Irving in the past has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and racist ideas. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

He remained in custody Thursday, the Austria Press Agency said. Calls to the Graz court went unanswered.

If formally charged, tried and convicted on the charge, Irving could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.

But he said it was unclear whether there were sufficient legal grounds to continue holding Irving on such a charge so many years after the alleged offense was committed. A decision was expected by the end of next week on how to proceed, Schneider said.

[Nathan]

Should Holocaust denial be an imprisonable crime? The last time I checked, freedom of speech -- an idea I am sure Austria supports on paper -- meant putting up with the opinions of people you do not agree with.

This would never happen in the US.

[tojo]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 17 2005, 01:02 PM']Should Holocaust denial be an imprisonable crime? The last time I checked, freedom of speech -- an idea I am sure Austria supports on paper -- meant putting up with the opinions of people you do not agree with.

This would never happen in the US.
[right][snapback]793008[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm not so sure, I think it could, or at least could soon.

Anyways, as wrong as he is, he should be able to say that junk.

[cmotherofpirl]

Most countries have a very limited freedom of speech.
For example if you live in Canada and say homosex is sinful you can be hauled off to court and fined.

[tojo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 17 2005, 03:40 PM']Most countries have a very limited freedom of speech.
For example if you live in Canada and say homosex is sinful you can be hauled off to court and fined.
[right][snapback]793234[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Which is why I think such things could soon happen in the US.

[Era Might]

Consider the context, though. Adolf Hitler was Austrian, and it was not more than a generation ago that Germany and Austria were involved in the mass murder of six million Jews. Although holocaust-denial may be tolerated elsewhere, where there was no direct involvement in the shoah, it is an entirely different situation in Europe.

Pope Leo XIII expounds on the just limitation of free speech in his Encyclical Letter "Libertas":

[quote]From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii...ibertas_en.html[/url][/quote]

Edited November 17, 2005 by Era Might

[son_of_angels]

Generally I agree with preventing speech which is seditious or profane, yet this man has said nothing of the sort. Having a differing historical opinion is neither intrinsically immoral, nor does it intrinsically encourage immoral behavior, nor is it contrary to moral order, nor does it violate the particular legal freedoms of another person, nor is it repugnant to the essential social foundations of a nationality. If he stood on a street corner saying, "Kill all Jews" at the top of his voice, I would understand, but it doesn't seem like this is what he is doing. Instead, this closes the door to meaningful debate on this topic, and turns a worthless historical theory into an ideological martyrdom for those who would turn such theories into violence.

[Era Might]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 17 2005, 07:56 PM']Having a differing historical opinion is neither intrinsically immoral, nor does it intrinsically encourage immoral behavior, nor is it contrary to moral order, nor does it violate the particular legal freedoms of another person, nor is it repugnant to the essential social foundations of a nationality. 
[right][snapback]793500[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would disagree to the extent that holocaust-denial is not a legitimate divergence in historical opinion (along the lines of, say, whether or not Martin Luther ever really posted his 95 theses in Wittenburg). Holocaust-denial is the fruit of anti-semitism, nothing more. It is not a legitimate historical view; it is anti-semitism, and in the context of a European continent where anti-semitism has a long, sorry history, and in Germany/Austria in particular, I very much understand the criminal penalties for this poisonous proposition.

[Nathan]

I don't know. I've known people who simply claim that they don't believe six million Jews died during the Holocaust -- that it was more like a few hundred thousand. I don't think that anybody really believes that there wasn't a Holocaust; they just believe that it wasn't so big. A position such as this -- which undoubtedly would be labelled Holocaust denial -- could feasibly be taken without anti-Semitic motivations.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 17 2005, 08:52 PM']I don't know. I've known people who simply claim that they don't believe six million Jews died during the Holocaust -- that it was more like a few hundred thousand. I don't think that anybody really believes that there wasn't a Holocaust; they just believe that it wasn't so big. A position such as this -- which undoubtedly would be labelled Holocaust denial -- could feasibly be taken without anti-Semitic motivations.
[right][snapback]793543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Realistically, though, this is a matter of historical fact. The advancement of such an "historical" opinion could be compared to the "historical" opinions of Dan Brown. No credible person holds that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. In the case of holocaust-denial, the impetus for such a mollification of the Shoah is invariably anti-semitism. Even if the person in question is not foaming at the mouth, I would say that the proposition itself is anti-semitic.

Now, certainly, if an ordinary citizen holds such an anti-semitic opinion, it might be tolerated, if it is to his own shame. But when we're talking about a scholar, publicly advancing such a proposition, there is no excuse.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Era Might

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 17 2005, 02:02 PM']This would never happen in the US.
[right][snapback]793008[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]You are correct-o-mundo, my friend. In the US, he would be asked to run as the Democratic Nominee for President.

[son_of_angels]

Being wrong about something which has no intrinsic moral imperatives should not be a crime. A subject of ridicule, perhaps, but not a crime.

When a state, however, becomes the one ridiculing it makes the state look all the more ridiculous.

[Era Might]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 17 2005, 10:24 PM']Being wrong about something which has no intrinsic moral imperatives should not be a crime.  A subject of ridicule, perhaps, but not a crime.

When a state, however, becomes the one ridiculing it makes the state look all the more ridiculous.
[right][snapback]793640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think it depends on the subject at hand.

A statement of slander, for example, has no [i]intrinsic[/i] moral impact. There is nothing inherently sinful about saying a journalist has fabricated the truth. If the statement is false, however, and the intent malicious, criminal prosecution will rightly follow.

We see the same principle in holocaust denial. An historical "opinion" may or may not be true, but when the opinion at hand is demonstrably false and malicious in character, and it is being disseminated publicly, in the context of a European society that is trying to patch up the wounds of its own sin, holocaust-denial, like slander, rightly incurs criminal prosecution.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Era Might

[rkwright]

I knew this was the law in Germany, but didn't know Austria either. And who helped write the German consitution post WWII... the Americans...

Its interesting because most people paint Europe as these liberal countries that tolerate much more than we do. Yet (rightfully so in my opinion) this is one thing they will not tolerate, anything doing with National Socialism.

The Holocaust is something that could EASILY happen today (look to africa, kosovo). Germany and Austria have taken steps to ensure that what happened to 6 million Jews will never happen again in their country. These 'historians' have only one goal, and that is not to find the truth. They actually believe that it is the Jews who are trying to take advantage of the holocaust for political and economic gains. These people scream of anti-semitism, and in the light of history, I don't think anti-semitism deserves a 'right' to exist. Thank goodness someone is willing to stand up for what is right.

Put it in our context... if there was a group of 'historians' who would claim that the planes at 9/11 weren't actually hijacked, or that they weren't hijacked my Islamic Terrorists; that the US government made all of that up in order to attack Islam across the globe. They wouldn't be directly inciting anything, but it sounds like the US is full of lies and we should fight back.

Its not morally wrong to have angry\violent ideas? I think the Bible and Church speaks otherwise...

Edited November 18, 2005 by rkwright

[son_of_angels]

I am not offering an opinion on angry/violent ideas. If the man tells his readers, "don't believe Jewish lies. The Holocaust didn't happen, the Nazis, however, were right to try to rid us of this infectious disease. Go and do thou likewise." I would agree that he should be prosecuted.

If, however, he says, "the Holocaust didn't happen. Here's my proof," let him be subject to the ridicule of his peers. Let him be their martyr, while the betters of such men, namely, the governments, kings, and church, remain firmly only on the side of justice, but never on the side of ridicule. This will make him the scholars' martyr and not the state's, that public disorder may not be encouraged by the adherents of some faction.

Ridicule is for the mean, common, and irrational, who sate their appetites for vengence on those perceived as inferiors. Yet, to justice, none should be inferior, except those who commit some moral wrong or something contrary to order. This balance is so important for a society that, when lacking, all manner of evil happens, worse than the falsities which the government would be trying to prevent through the mixture of ridicule with justice. Justice to people; ridicule to ideas.

Edited November 18, 2005 by son_of_angels