David Irving pleads guilty in Holocaust denial

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

'Bout time. I hope some Iranians sit up and take notice.

Nazi historian Irving pleads guilty to denying Holocaust.

[StoneMtn]

Such a scumbag.

Even if he was right (as he now acknowledges he was not) and there were no gas chambers but most people died in the camps due to disease ... So what? That's like those arguments that exist like, "Well, I don't think it was really 6 million; maybe 1 million ... blah ... blah ... blah."

Morons.

... and he can't believe we're bugging him about something he said 17 years ago; poor baby.

[d_rawk]

Anyone ever see "Mr. Death: the Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr."? A good documentary about how people get seduced into that particular worldview, and the junk science they call into their service. Apparently, Irving's own holocaust denial was greatly influenced by the "work" of Leuchter.

"He's not the kind of person that would strike you. He is a mouse of a man. He's also a man who is totally honest and totally innocent; innocent in the sense of being a simpleton. He went into this as a glorious adventure. He was taken out of oblivion. He was given this task to perform. He traveled abroad, probably for the first time in his life, to Poland. He came back with these earth-shattering results. The big point: there is no significant residue of cyanide in the brickwork. That's what converted me."

- David Irving

[edit:] there's a full transcript of the movie on Errol Morris' website: Mr. Death transcript

And select quotes here (WikiQuote)

"Holocaust denial is a story about vanity. It is a way to get in the limelight, to be noticed -- to be someone -- maybe to be loved. I have a sympathy to Fred, who's lost in Auschwitz, because I think he's lost. But not any more with the Fred who appears in these conferences." - Robert-Jan Van Pelt

"Fred's story raises lots of interesting questions, such as: What happens if you really need to be loved and the only people who will love you are Nazis?" - Errol Morris

Edited February 20, 2006 by Guest
links & quotes

[Birdy]

i've watched you guys advocate and acknowledge free speech in other threads, and now you're clapping your hands in this one.

i'm no fan of a holocaust denier, but i can't see how this is a 'crime'.

edit to add: no need to argue the guy is a scumbag, i agree.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

It's called inciting hate in Canada. That is not a protected right under the Charter, and I generally agree with that limitation on civil liberties. There are others, as well, of course.

In Germany, however, it is simply a crime to deny the holocaust. That is written into their criminal statutes.

Does that help?

[d_rawk]

Birdy -- it is a crime, in this country and in Germany. That isn't ambiguous territory, and there is no need to put quotes around 'crime', in this case.

However, I was actually suggesting that he deserved [ok. "deserved" might be a little strong. "Should be extended ..."] our sympathy. Which is probably equally unpopular, but, hey ... y'know.

[Birdy]

It's called inciting hate in Canada.

If you belong to the club who believes inciting hate is a recent phenomenon and hasn't existed say, since the beginning of time.

d_rawk i'd argue the ambiguousness with you.. and i should not have included you in my post above. sorry

Edited February 21, 2006 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

No. It existed since the beginning of time. It continues to exist.

It is now a part of Canadian law, which has not itself existed since the beginning of time, of course.

I don't see your point.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

d_rawk, I hear your call for sympathy from a Gandhian perspective, if you mean that everyone deserves sympathy inasmuch as no person per se is evil, but might feel compelled to do evil through circumstance. His angle was that you bring their conscience to speak more loudly in their mind and so change their behaviour.

That's a hard and, as even Gandhi found, very trying line to hold to.

In such a light, I would modify my description, "Irving is an asshole" to "Irving is being an asshole," and hope for the best.

[Birdy]

i mean that it runs a damn fine line with freedom of speech and expression, and that in the past 40-50 years or so a lot has changed in social thought to let us think we can start to legislate and censor.

edit to add: that, and it is ghastly open to interpretation.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

in the past 40-50 years or so a lot has changed in social thought to let us think we can start to legislate and censor.

Ummm... really, the lines of legislation around what you can say and walk away from have loosened like few times in history.

The fact of being female and saying what you like: do you think that was easily won, given our history?

[Birdy]

not entirely sure if i'm following you DEM.

but to predict reactions? by law?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Now I'm confused. What do you mean about predicting reactions by law?

[d_rawk]

.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Guest
Meh. Wine.

[Birdy]

Now I'm confused. What do you mean about predicting reactions by law?

i mean there is a lot out there that has the potential to 'incite' hate and to begin legislating mediums on how we think people will react is difficult and really does violate freedom of speech. i just see a large vagueness when it comes to the provisions of 'inciting hate' in the criminal code.

maybe i can cough it up to growing up under the influence of a guy who defends.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I like to think people who establish these laws appreciate the danger of authoritarianism (i.e. the psychology behind it), and how hate-speech has certain effects on certain audiences that does propel them towards violence.

Sometimes throwing professional agitators in jail does some good. Check out the story of George Burdi , who, admittedly, was incarcerated for assault, but whose time in prison gave him a chance to chill out a bit and see things from a different perspective.

Interview

[Birdy]

i'm with you DEM (for the most part) but when we start to govern thought and speech and expression i tend to question who actually is authoritarian.

[StoneMtn]

Of course hate laws are open to interpretation in their application; so are defamation laws; so are laws regarding sexual assault. (Just ask Mr. Ladu from the judgment of R. v. Ladu when he insisted on being convicted of sexual assault when they wanted to charge him with interference with a corpse.) There will always be examples that fall in the grey area. That's why we have Courts to adjudicate these things.

The fact is, denying the Holocaust has been intepreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in this way. That is Canada's highest court; therefore that's the law. As well, it is specifically a separate crime to deny the Holocaust in Germany.

I am not expressing an opinion. This is just fact.

If you're saying you don't like those facts, that's another story.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Authoritarianism is an unquestioning obedience to authority. I think it's vital that we question authority; otherwise, we can't grow and become authentic ourselves. But where it becomes impossible to raise questions or be heard (e.g., among people who take The Protocols as hard fact), intervention becomes necessary. Sometimes people need to be told to shut up and let other people talk. If they refuse to shut up and let other people talk, what options are available (I don't ask this rhetorically)?

Hate speech is precisely that kind of communication that by its nature cuts others out (sometimes with lethal consequences).

[Birdy]

hence why d_rawk i put crime in quotations.

i am saying i don't like those facts stone, i was denied my ambiguity.

and i know i'm not alone in this.. 'inciting hate' in the criminal code has stirred up some debate amongst all you law minded folk.

[Birdy]

Authoritarianism is an unquestioning obedience to authority. I think it's vital that we question authority; otherwise, we can't grow and become authentic ourselves. But where it becomes impossible to raise questions or be heard (e.g., among people who take The Protocols as hard fact), intervention becomes necessary. Sometimes people need to be told to shut up and let other people talk. If they refuse to shut up and let other people talk, what options are available (I don't ask this rhetorically)?

Hate speech is precisely that kind of communication that by its nature cuts others out (sometimes with lethal consequences).

on a moral level, i'm in total agreeance.

my question though is this- what criteria must be met for a situation to become "impossible to raise questions"? how is that governed?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

my question though is this- what criteria must be met for a situation to become "impossible to raise questions"? how is that governed?

If I'm reading you one way, I think StoneMtn's already said - we have the institution of the courts to hammer these things out to the best possible satisfaction.

If what you're thinking of is what makes people shut others out and strip them of their being, that's much more of a complex thing. What makes people treat others as means to ends and not ends in themselves? I think that's where we get into all the issues of human insecurity and psychopathology.

[Birdy]

i don't literally mean "how"? more ethically "how"? i'm not in favour of giving any elected/APPOINTED body the moral high ground to make these kind of decisions. especially when history has a number of horrific stories of governing bodies and what they do with their moral high ground.

where is the line drawn?

Edited February 21, 2006 by Guest
clarification of thought

[StoneMtn]

Our judges are not elected.

The decision that hate speech such as Irving's is not protected under the Charter was a judge-made ruling. It was not legislation.

Did you even read the judgment to which I linked above?

You are right. There was a debate on this. The Court has opined. It's over, and I agree with that judgment.

[Birdy]

that's ok stone, i don't, nor in any wordly/earthly sense do i see the supreme court of canada as the last straw.

edit to add: how else do we maintain accountability i suppose?

i read some of the link, but haven't had time to go through it all.

i'm just born to question and go outside of my boundaries.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Guest