David Irving, the famous holocaust denier from the UK, has been sentenced to 3 years in prison in Austria. It is illegal to deny the holocaust in that nation. I agree entirely with this:
A few Austrians, such as Lothar Hobelt, an associate professor of history at the University of Vienna, believe it should never have been set up at all.
"This is a silly law by silly people for silly people," he said.
"In fact, having a law that says you mustn't question a particular historical instance, if anything, creates doubt about it, because if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument."
Quite right. David Irving, and Larry Darby and many others, are, in my view, a scumbag and a fraud. But that's not illegal. I am free to denounce them with all due vigor, as is anyone else, but to imprison them for their heretical opinions is to engage in the very thing such laws are allegedly intended to fight. It's an outrage and a crime against freedom and Austria should be ashamed.
- Log in to post comments
I couldn't agree more, Ed. True freedom includes the freedom to be a lying anti-Semitic scumbag. Forbidding the expression of any idea, no matter how loathsome, will only increase its attraction for certain people who view themselves as "smarter than the average bear."
Quite agree with you. Irving and his like are dregs of humanity, but I still don't like the idea of muting their blather with legal means.
I also agree. Indeed, I was going to post on this very point until Ed beat me to it. *shakes fist in impotent fury*
the big problem with forcefully shutting up loathesome opinions is that they then are only expressed in private where they are unrefutable. If they can talk about it in public, then you can respond in public and make them look like the creeps they are.
How long do you think it will be before the crowd at Uncommon Descent start equating Irving's imprisonment with the prohibition on teaching creationism in public schools?
Right on. This story has really upset me. So he's a holocaust denier, so what? All that makes him is an ignorant asshole. Jailing him only sets a dangerous precedent. If we're going to outlaw viewpoints that piss other people off, then we might as well just stop speaking altogether.
Oh, and that's the royal 'we' of course. I'm American. but just because this happened in Australia doesn't mean it has no concern to anyone that gives a damn about freedom.
"the big problem with forcefully shutting up loathsome opinions is that they then are only expressed in private where they are irrefutable. If they can talk about it in public, then you can respond in public and make them look like the creeps they are."
Quite right, but it goes even further. You also have the added effect that what's loathsome to some might not be to others. The idea is so convoluted and subjective, that even considering banning offensive speech becomes in itself a meaningless idea.
It's especially disturbing given the European governments' general attitude regarding the Mohammad cartoons; now Muslims will call for the same legal protections for themselves. Seems freedom is very much on the retreat.
Germany and Austria are still very sensitive about their Nazi past. I believe there are other laws on the books banning expressions of support for Nazi causes in both countries. Ebay and Yahoo had to stop people from selling Nazi paraphernalia on their auction sites if I recall correctly, and ID Software had to heavily modify their Nazi-themed Wolfenstein 3D game before it could be sold there.
It is probably high time for these laws to be wiped off the books since there is little chance of either country sliding back into fascism, but you have to remember why these laws were enacted in the first place--to prevent the chance of something like the Holocaust happening again.
I don't condone the denier law or 3-year sentence, they're ridiculous, and I suspect that in the end he will be freed and the law will be quoshed, or at least watered down.
BTW: When I applied for my Green Card in 2001, I still had to answer these questions:
6. Have you ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?
7. Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion?
Now, obviously they are not in the same league as jail time for denying the Holocaust, but it shows how laws can be influenced by past traumas (I mean, why do we still need to know if an immigrant is or was ever a Communist?). This is much more so for countries who actively participated in past horrors like Germany and Austria.
I'm glad to see this post and these comments. I've talked to several aquaintances and they all said the same thing: "so what?" or "its necessary to prevent people from forgetting."
Hogwash. I wonder how many people understand what the principle of freedom of conscience means? If you can't defend the worst case scenario, then DON'T believe in freedom of conscience.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
That's the standard we are supposed to be living up to. But its a far cry from that standard when laws are passed which criminalize thought.
"Wiederbetätigung" lit. renewed activity is not a "speech crime", it is a crime of action. It is the crime to *act* upon nazi beliefs or promote action. Irving is not a harmless idiot, but one of the chief ideologues of renewed nazi activity.
It pains me, that our laws do not give freedom of hatred to nazis and thus give offense to poor innocent little USians, but I shall be strong and survive.
Agree that this should not have happened and that the arguments for limiting free speech are weak. However, this statement is annoying as hell because it is full of logical errors:
Firstly, since when is a historical fact an 'argument'? Facts is facts - 'argument' can come in in interpretation, but not on whether or not the holocaust happened. Using this word, in fact, suggests that dbate is meaningful... in much the same way as those silly people who say that pupils should be able to 'make up their own minds' on whether or not evolution is a reality.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is total bullshit to say that 'if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument'. Even if it was an argument, that would simply be false: whether or not there is legislation has no impact on how strong an argument is. When you factor in the misuse of 'argument' then it's even more daft - effectively, the guy is saying 'if a fact is protected by law, it's a weak fact.' No - if a fact is a fact, it's a fact and there's an end to it.
Surely you could have found a representative quotwe that wasn't quite so asinine?
Hume's ghost is right.
BTW, can you imagine the effect on the world if the U.S. and the EU were to stand up to this law, note it as contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and demand Irving be freed? It would be almost-tangible evidence of the support for freedom of conscience for Moslems, and it might lead to a serious discussion of the wacky views of the current president of Iran. Force him to discuss and defend his bizarre views, and let sunlight in to kill the germs . . .
While the basic law is in this case unique to Austria, Irving would have to face similiar trials in many countries. In Germany denial of holocaust will be more generally pursued as commiting the criminal acts of slander/libel (Irving himself sued -without success - the US-american journalist Deborah Lipstadt) as well as insult. Both offences are to my understanding also present in american law. The maximum sentence for slander/libel in Germany would be 2 years in federal custody, which is similiar to the Austrian decision. In both countries these laws were enacted by parliaments, elected in free democratic elections. Irving was given the oportunity to defend himself in court. All in all I cannot possibly detect a violation of human rights in this case.
Tacitus....just to make sure I haven't misunderstood....
You had to swear you weren't a Communist in order to get your American green card? As in - we're still refusing residency to Communists?
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like this whole freedom of speech problem under discussion here is a problem that varies only by degree between America and Austria. There's a difference between being denied residency and being sentenced to jail, but both are wrong.
(Oh, just to clarify, I'm not trying to imply anyone here has agreed or disagreed with this immigration stipulation.)
TH wrote:
Then perhaps you could detail exactly what Irving did other than express his views (obnoxious though those views may be). He has not even been accused of doing anything other than writing and speaking in denial of the holocaust. He has not taken any action whatsoever other than that. Thus, what he has been imprisoned for is, despite your denials, nothing more than a speech crime.
If you're going to engage in such smug sarcasm, you should at least have the facts straight first to avoid looking foolish.
outeast wrote:
This is pure semantics - we do, of course, argue about facts all the time. Specifically, we argue over whether they are or aren't facts. Irving makes arguments that support his factual claim that the Holocaust did not occur; others make arguments that deny that factual claim. But he has been imprisoned for making those arguments and that is what the quote accurately refers to.
maz wrote:
There are similar laws in many European countries, Austria and Germany are not the only ones. And yes, we have slander and libel laws in America, but they are very narrowly drawn and notoriously difficult to win. They are also part of the civil law, not the criminal law, so you cannot go to jail for them you can only be required to compensate the victim for the damage you did to their reputation. The libel and slander laws in England, for example, where Irving attempted to sue Lipstadt, are ridiculously loose and are applied to virtually any instance where someone is offended. They easily become an unjustified restriction on free speech. In the US, you cannot sue for libel or slander merely for being insulted, you must show that they intentionally spread information they knew to be false with the intent to defame you; that's a very difficult standard to meet, as it should be.
Neither of these arguments refutes my position at all. I don't care how democratically a law was passed, that has nothing at all to do with whether the law is or is not a violation of the right to free speech. If a legislature passed a law imprisoning people for speaking to others about their religious views, would this be any less a violation of their rights merely because it was passed democratically? Democracy and liberty are not the same thing; in fact, they are often in conflict. Unjust and tyrannical laws can be passed by a legislature just as easily as they can be declared by a King. Nor does the fact that he had an opportunity to defend himself in court make the situation any less tyrannical. The fact that he is being punished solely for expressing his views on this subject makes the law tyrannical, regardless of the procedure by which that law is either passed or enforced.
As someone who lost many 1st and 2nd degree relatives, I find holocaust deniers to be scum of human beings.
That being said, suppression of speech is the foundation of repression, facism, and a multitude of evils. Depriving human rights to this scumbag is putting them down the same road that they tried to abandon so many years ago.
"6. Have you ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?
7. Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion?"
Tacitus: These questions have also been used, post-9/11, to interrogate foreign visitors to the United States. One of my colleagues at my company, based in London, came to the U.S. for a conference a couple years ago, and was asked those questions. He responded by pointing out that not only was he a bit too young to have associated with the Nazi Government between 1933 and 1945 (he wasn't born yet, and his birthdate was on his immigration card), he was also formerly a British soldier--"and we were on your side."
Georgia still requires its public employees to sign a statment affirming that they are not "subversive persons". I had to sign one when I was a student employee at UGA.
Reed-
So you perjured yourself? :)
Tacitus....just to make sure I haven't misunderstood....
You had to swear you weren't a Communist in order to get your American green card? As in - we're still refusing residency to Communists?
Well, you have to say whether or not you have been a Communist, so I guess they might have still granted me a Green Card if I had said "yes" but I suspect they would have wanted to talk to me about it first!
Mind you, here are a couple of other questions on the application:
Have you ever engaged in genocide, or otherwise ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the killing of any person because of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion?
Fair question, but can you even imagine anyone answering "Yes" to that one?
Within the past ten years been a prostitute or procured anyone for prostitution, or intend to engage in such activities in the future?
Hmm. They also ask you if you are entering the USA intending to engage in espionage, overthrow the government, or practice polygamy. (Note it's OK to bea polygamist, just not in the USA, so I guess all those visiting oil sheiks are okay.
Of course, they ask all these questions essentially so they can get you on perjury if you fail to be truthful, but it's hard to see how anyone would admit to these things on an application form.
Tacitus:
Of course, they ask all these questions essentially so they can get you on perjury if you fail to be truthful...
This is true, and it is one of the grounds that the US government has revoked the US citizenships of ex-Nazis and, particularly, ex-extermination camp personnel who made their way to the US following WWII. Ironically, most of them seemed to have been from Eastern Europe.
On the subject of the post, I do believe that it is profoundly silly for the Austrian government to execute a 16 or 17 year old arrest warrant on an old man who had been humiliated in his libel trial against Deborah Lipstadt. IIRC, the court required him to pay her attorneys fees, but he has not done so.
But, on the other hand, andere Laender, andere Sitten--other countries, other practices. One thing, though, that the governments of Germany and Austria should be concerned about, is that young people, at least in Germany, are getting tired of the continued self-flagellation of the government regarding the Nazi past, particularly since they had nothing to do with it.
I was shocked when I read about this in the paper this morning. I did not think that in wester liberal democracies that one could actually be imprisoned for thought crimes. How in the hell can a government set out to legislate what a person is allowed to believe? This is mind-bogglingly bizarre. And what ever happened to the theory that free speech protections are not there to protect statements we all agree with, but to protect the less popular statements?
mikey
Irving makes arguments that support his factual claim that the Holocaust did not occur; others make arguments that deny that factual claim.
Ed, everyone can see for his own eyes the evidence of the Holocaust. Plane tickets to Krakow can be bought cheap and then it's only a bus ride to Oswiecim, where the Nazi death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau is located. I see no point of arguing about the factuality of Holocaust, otherwise then to somehow whitewash the Nazis or irritate the victims.
In the US, you cannot sue for libel or slander merely for being insulted, you must show that they intentionally spread information they knew to be false with the intent to defame you
So it's OK to spread falsehood about someone as long as you can reason some remote chance it could be true? Like in "John Smith is a child molester". I don't know it is false because I didn't bother to check, so it is not libel! I think people should carry some responsibility for what they say.
This is true, and it is one of the grounds that the US government has revoked the US citizenships of ex-Nazis and, particularly, ex-extermination camp personnel who made their way to the US following WWII. Ironically, most of them seemed to have been from Eastern Europe.
To get the facts straight: most of the personnel of the extermination camps was German. Maybe the fact that the majority of those who fled to the USA came from Eastern Europe was because German personnel had less reasons to flee (German denazification was mostly a scam), apart from a few high-profile cases. It was not an accident that Eichmann was tried in Israel, not in Germany.
You had to swear you weren't a Communist in order to get your American green card? As in - we're still refusing residency to Communists?
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like this whole freedom of speech problem under discussion here is a problem that varies only by degree between America and Austria. There's a difference between being denied residency and being sentenced to jail, but both are wrong.
I disagree. Being granted residency in a foreign country is not a right, it is a privilege. The USA could decide it is only going to give Green Cards to gay Islamic muftis with blonde hair and it will be perfectly OK from the POV of human rights. It would be stupid and unfair, but not a breach of human rights.
W/r to David Irving, I think that it was wrong to try him, but I won't shed a single tear if he rots for a time in an Austrian prison. The bastard well deserves some inconvenience.
Roman wrote:
I see no point in arguing about it either. I think anyone who argues that the Holocaust didn't occur is either a conman, a vile person, or more likely both. But that really has nothing to do with my argument. Yes, Irving is a repulsive human being. That doesn't mean it is just to throw him in prison.
As I said, in the US the law defines libel and slander very narrowly. I think it does so for good reason, because the alternative would be far worse and would clog the courts with all sorts of frivolous cases. It's certainly preferable to the British law, which defines them far too broadly and thus has people suing others over perfectly valid criticism.
I couldn't possibly care any less about Irving's inconvenience. What I care about is preventing governments from punishing the expression of ideas, regardless of how heinous I find those ideas to be. And if we do not defend that even for those we despise, we have no coherent argument to make when the same power is used to punish those we agree with.
Looks like the story is not over yet. Apparently, the prosecutors think that even 3 years is too lenient and have appealed the sentence, going for the 10 year max.
It's all so very ridiculous. As vile as he is and as despicable as his views are, jailing him for those views is simply wrong.
P.S. : He's also a disgrace to the profession of the historian, but that still doesn't merit imprisonment.
What are other historians saying? I've heard only Norman Davies opposing Irving's trial.
Roman wrote:
I've not heard anything from historians, but I would certainly hope that they are speaking out against the imprisonment of Irving. If not, shame on them. They would be as self-serving and vile as those writers who did not stand up for Salman Rushdie, who excused the actions of the fascist Mullahs who put a price on his head.