Right-wing British historian David Irving, who once famously said that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews, has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust.
Irving, 67, was detained Nov. 11 in the southern province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws making Holocaust denial a crime, police Maj. Rudolf Gollia, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Thursday...
The Britain-based Holocaust Educational Trust congratulated Austrian authorities on the arrest. Trust chairman Lord Greville Janner, noting that Britain has no such laws that make denying the Holocaust a crime, praised the Austrians "for doing what our law should but does not permit."...
If formally charged, tried and convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office. (link)
The first amendment would not allow such a prosecution here, and thank goodness for that. Irving is a vile man pushing vile ideas, but if the government has the power to punish him for his heretical ideas, none of us are safe from the use of such power (I was going to say "abuse of such power", but it is the power itself that is abusive, regardless of how one uses it). The content of his speech makes no difference to the question of this injustice. Imagine if they arrested someone for denying the inquisition, or the American revolution and how absurd that would seem to you; it should seem no less absurd when the idea being attacked is offensive to us.
- Log in to post comments
While I have contempt for Irving's writings, I certainly have sympathy for anyone thrown in jail for voicing their opinions, however stupid or reprehensible those opinions might be.
You'd think that Austria, of all places, would have learned something about tossing people in the klink for speaking "incorrect" opinions.
I am 100% against arresting someone for voicing their opinion, no matter how vile and/or misguided that opinion is. But, I have to admit, this still made me chuckle a bit.
"Imagine if they arrested someone for denying the inquisition, or the American revolution and how absurd that would seem to you??""
Sadly ironic that such an arrest is so like the same Nazi behaviors that seem to inspire Irving to write what he does. And will the State of Kansas be motivated in the future criminally and civilly punish teachers who do not follow the curriculum guidelines to teach ID???
It can't happen here--mmmm
"If formally charged, tried and convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison."
So...in order to prevent a fascist tragedy from happening again, we are enforcing...fascist laws. Fascism to prevent fascism, what a brilliant idea.
Andere Laender, andere Sitten: Other countries, other practices.
Regarding Austria, it appears that they, like Germany, wish to compensate for their Nazi past using criminal law.
raj wrote:
As I keep saying, principles don't suddenly go away when they cross a line on a map. The principle of liberty and freedom of conscience either applies universally or it applies not at all, and the last person who should reject that idea is a gay man in America. There is no defense for gay rights without appeal to this universal principle.
You don't compensate for oppression with more oppression.
Ed, I understand that more than a few Americans believe that their "practices" should be universal, but it should be clear that people in other countries disagree with you. People in the US have oftentimes disagreed with you, as should be clear from Congress's circumscription of free speech more than a few times since the ratification of the 1st amendment.
Second, Irving was stupid for going to Austria. He wasn't being oppressed when he was in the UK, although his libel suit in the UK against Deborah Lipstadt was thrown out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
Andere Laender, andere Sitten.
raj wrote:
I don't care. They're wrong. And this is not an argument you would make if it's an issue you care about. Do you excuse away Iran's execution of a group of gay teenagers as "other countries, other practices"? I certainly hope not, because if you do then you have no rational basis for opposing a government killing you because you're gay too. If it's not universally wrong, then you also have no basis for complaining about anti-gay policies in America either because, after all, there is no standard to apply there is only what each culture prefers to do at any given time.
What Iran did was wrong, and it is wrong in all places at all times. It doesn't become okay because it took place across a line on a map. It's wrong because it violates the universal principle that each person has an unalienable right to live their life to maximize their happiness as long as their actions don't deprive another of their equal right to self-determination. If you cannot appeal to that principle to defend someone else's rights, then you can't appeal to it to defend yours either.
And were they wrong to do so? You have often criticized our government for doing so, and so have I. But the only rational basis for that criticism is an appeal to universal principles of liberty that it is always unjust to violate. You just don't seem to grasp that by invoking cultural relativism as an excuse, you undermine your own case for equal rights. A gay man should be the very last people to endorse this kind of relativism, as it excuses away the anti-gay policies that you and I both oppose. You can't make a consistent and coherent case against those policies without reference to a principle that transcends cultural boundaries. If it's just a matter of local preferences, then the state or nation you live in is as justified in killing gay people as they are in recognizing their common humanity (and therefore, their unalienable rights).
Well said! Very well said. You not only point out why freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but also the boundaries to such rights. My freedom of speech does not trump your right to run this blog as you see fit, should you decied to delete this comment.
Yes, this is a case where America got it right, without question. It is a pity that a phrase as simple as "Congress shall make no law" has since become the subject of such debate.
Ed, apparently you fail to understand. There is a history to this. The Austrians (and, by the way, Germans) have a history that they believe that they need to deal with. A Nazi history. Both countries have laws against the display of Nazi symbols, laws against Volksverhetzung (basically incitement of hatred against groups of people) and laws against Holocaust denial. There is a history to this. They want to encourage the creation of a civil society.
That is in stark contrast to the Iranian government. Their government doesn't want to create a civil society. They murdered the gay kids because they have no interest in creating a civil society.
There is a huge difference.
A gay man should be the very last people to endorse this kind of relativism, as it excuses away the anti-gay policies that you and I both oppose.
Ed, don't be presumptuous. I am not endorsing any kind of relativism. I am explaining the relativism that is evident in Austria. The unfortunate fact is that laws and practices are relative to their histories. It is likely that Austria should just not allowed Irving to enter. The US has refused entry to Sein Fein officials. It is not clear, however, that Austria, as a member of the EU, could have excluded Irving. If they could have, they would probably have ejected him directly, and it would not have come to a criminal case.
Oh, the Sein Fein official who the US had excluded was Gerry Adams. (I believe that is how his name was spelled).
A google search suggests that an alternate spelling of the name of the organization is Sinn Fein.
raj wrote:
I know there's a history behind this. That has no bearing on whether it is oppressive to arrest people for advocating offensive ideas or not. It's entirely irrelevant to my position. The fact that they think it's justified doesn't mean it's justified. The fact that you label it a "civil society" doesn't make it any better. A civil society is a society which protects the rights of conscience.
You're contradicting your own reasoning, raj. Other countries, other practices, remember? To the Iranians, a civil society is a society that is faithful to the Quran, which forbids homosexuality and commands the death penalty for it. You cannot excuse away oppression in one circumstance by invoking cultural relativism, and then condemn a different country for another form of oppression. You either believe that the principle of liberty is applicable at all times in all places, or you don't. You seem to want to invoke it only when it affects you personally, while allowing oppression of those you disagree with. But if you want the government (any government) to have the authority to punish dissenting opinions, you also give them the authority to punish your opinions, and as a gay man, that is the very last thing you should be wanting the government to have. Nine times out of ten, you're going to end up on the losing end of that wager. It is in your best interests, as well as far more intellectually consistent, to be against violations of liberty in all cases.
I'm not being presumptuous. If you were just "explaining", then all you were saying is "the Austrians disagree" - which is of course both obviously true and completely irrelevant to my statement that they are wrong to act as thought police. It's the equivalent of saying nothing at all.
Every time I criticize our government for oppressing gays, for example, you cheer me on. But every time I criticize another government, you say the same thing, that "Americans" don't have any right to criticize another country because our government does bad things too. Which is true as a premise (that our government does bad things too) but patently absurd as a conclusion (since I criticize my own government too, I am being entirely consistent when I criticize other governments).
Let me be very clear: I don't care whether the Austrians think it is justified or not; they're wrong. One can come up with historical justifications for all sorts of oppressive policies, but they are still oppressive. I don't care if the Canadians think it's okay to punish Stephen Boissoin for making anti-gay statements; they are wrong. And I don't care if my own government thinks it is justified to prohibit gay couples from adopting children; they are wrong. Period. All three are wrong for the same reason, because they violate the core principle of liberty that is applicable here, there, before, now, and forever.
"It is not clear, however, that Austria, as a member of the EU, could have excluded Irving. If they could have, they would probably have ejected him directly, and it would not have come to a criminal case."
Austria did exclude him. Irving was in the country illegally, it seems. He is wanted on charges dating back to 1989. Iriving is barred from Austria and yet came anyway. I have even less sympathy for him than normally.
More detail here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,1645411,00.html