Banning the expression of ideas, even horrible ones, will come back to bite you in the ass. Always has. Always will. It is best to put nutters in plain view of all. That way, you can mock them in public, and everyone can see they are nutters. But when you make them forbidden, you make a statement that they have power, that they have ideas so compelling that you do not trust yourself to offer a good argument against them. Then, people who otherwise would not listen to them, do so precisely because it is forbidden. It’s human nature. By driving it underground, all you do is set yourself up for a very unpleasant surprise when it resurfaces. Bigger than ever. And because you have set a precedent for banning, whoever takes power may now ban what you like. And they will cite your own words to justify themselves. When you ban something, you do not destroy it. You merely put a blindfold on your own eyes. It is better to face your enemy. Ignorance of him will be your own downfall.
Oh poop! Enid Blyton was banned for a moment (in libraries) in the hysterical days. Then we all grew up and realised she was sexist, racist…with lashings of ginger beer… but not toxic. 
Irving is still in the current days alas and way more harmful then lashings of ginger beer.
Well you just want to make liberal sense don’t you?
Though there are many in my country who would agree with you, there are just as many who wouldn’t.
It is interesting how very differently “freedom” is interpreted from place to place.
I don’t want to speak for my fellow countrymen, but I don’t think there would have been many who supported him coming here.
If “we” collectively agree something Is A Bad Thing, does banning it mean we are not free?
You can’t collectively agree to anything unless 100% of “you” agree, in which case it would be useless to pass a law. The whole purpose of banning books is forcing those who do not agree with “you” to do as “you” say. It is forced coercion backed up by the thread of violence. In what way does that make you moral superior to David Irwing?
…here is the list of some of the previous speakers to the National Press Club:
http://www.nationalpressclub.org.nz/speakers.html
…ranging from former Prime Ministers to comedian’s to green MP’s to activists. Members are free to submit people that they would like to hear from. I have been to several Press Club events and listened to many of the speakers (in my capacity as Functions Manager(okay, yes, I was serving the food! )) and found them to be informative, and useful. Peter Issac, president of the National Press Club, is a fantastic gentleman, was probably one of those who contributed to Mr Irving’s invitation-and I do believe that it was an inspired choice. While I do not believe that the world is going to end because Irving isn’t going to speak-I don’t believe it was wrong for the NPC to invite him, or for people to want to actually listen to him. Bear in mind that the official reason for declining his visit was because of the incident in Canada…not because of the nature of his beliefs…
I know a great deal about the Holocaust and am a non- Jewish member of Leeds Holocaust Survivers Social Group.
Our founder members are elderly and ex- camp prisoners. The impression you get from speaking to them is that they have ‘never left the camps’ and that their life was put on hold. Locked into bitter memories. Very few have prospered, all have an element of guilt about their survival, and many wish they had died in the camps along with their relatives. To make matter worse [for them] occasionally people will tell them ‘that they must have done something in order to have been arrested by the Germans’. And in prominent newspapers people like Irving will be allowed to say it never happened, that it was an Jewish hoax, and so they, the survivors, have learnt to shut up and say nothing. To pretend it did not affect them - but it did and it shows, their eyes reveal their haunted inner sadness.
You cannot sympathise with a survivor, you cannot undo the great wrong done to him / them, but you can shout down people like D Irving [thank you to those who have done so on this post] and you can confront members of the British National Party or Stormfront in America. [KKK under a different name] You can also support Israel and the NAACP.
There is over 3500 books on the Holocaust. The best is one called ‘Five Chimneys’ written by a camp doctor. Another good book was written by a man who actually worked in the Birkenau Crematoria and who saw everything that went on. All books on the Holocaust contain descriptions of of unerving witnessed incidents, but none more unerving than what happened to the Jewish children. You had chidren has young as two, three, four, seven and seventeen, herded into these horrible camps and slaughtered. For grown men like Irving to spit on their memories, to spit on their suffering, to spit in their faces and to mock them in death is unforgiveable. A crime in itself. The Jews are admirable, what the deniers claim is untrue, and Jews make good friends and neighbours and workmates.
David Irving brings shame on us all. He debases and prostitutes the right to free speech and should be ignored. He disgraces all right thinking English people and he disgraces the calling he professes - that of being an historian. Him/ a Nazi Apologist. I can only hint here at the much wider field of true Holocaust research. Suffice to say it happened and Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno, and Birkenau prove it. A visit to Barracks 11 in Auschwitz is a sad reminder of how strange, how brutal, how indifferent people can be - when their minds are warped by idiotic beliefs or poisoned by black uniformed madmen. Hitler was the runt of the litter, so was Goebells, so was Himmler, yet they had the audacity to claim they led a master race? They were Criminals with no good traits.
TRUE-BRIT. LEEDS ENGLAND. Aug 3 2004.
See, I’m all up for this guy coming. The National Front can go along, the Herald can run disapproving opinion pieces, Craccum can work itself into a froth and most people will ignore his visit, as well they should.
My problem with banning him because we find his message hateful or delusional is that it suggests that our government does not deem us to be able to make up our own minds over what we find tolerable. Let him come and ignore him.
That horrible atrocities occured does not justify the arbitrary supression of unpopular ideas.
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
Okay now I want slap me about the face for having to defend me…and that’s not saying what any other Kiwi wants to do to me for speaking for them
I say (ME just me) that Davd Irving has made himself a history of spouting shit. I say (ME just me) that we have more then enough racial crap going on right now we don’t need any introduced crap.
I say (Me Just me) that he is an incredible arsehole http://www.adl.org/holocaust/irving.asp and I feel completely comfortable with him not being allowed to sully our shores.
::slaps calm kiwi:: ::slaps calm kiwi harder! :: ::throws calm kiwi out of the country again ::
…don’t worry about it CK, 
people speak for me all the time…
I think the this is that I can’t see how anyone could take him seriously, and thus I don’ see what damage he could really do. He seems to me to be like one of those people that stand on Queen St shouting that we’re all going to hell and to stop laughing at him. Hard to treat sensibly, y’know?
Oh just beause someone makes a teensy fuck up about rugby and then they go tar us all with the same brush all of a sudden they need to be voted out of the island! You damn 'ist, you.
I still think (yes ME STILL JUST ME) that fucknugget should be banned…all of a sudden I realise I have no could reason except for…Well because!
Oh I’m such a facist.
On behalf of Banquet Bear I have to agree with you.
Oh goody it’s a democracy
How does any govt get voted in then? I thought Sadam was the only one who got 100% in an election
I think that’s what’s called “the tyranny of the majority” IIRC
The link in the OP states:-
Similar to his being refused entry to Oz -
From here
I’m not sure if that is a good or bad thing really (I’m mostly with LIB in thinking that bad ideas should be fought by augment)
But that Irvine is an evil fuck is beyond doubt - sadly (and unusually) he’s clever and meticulous in his work - which makes him more dangerous than the usual brainless thugs, luckily there are those who have taken time to point out the many holes in his “research”
As a fellow Brit, I feel shame at his existence
I see your shame and raise you a “ban the wanker”
I was unfamiliar with this particular halfwit, but I just read up on him a bit. Impressive list of racist wank this guy has produced.
Still, I don’t think it’s right that New Zealand banned him. I agree with others than nutcases like this should not be curbed per se, but rather should be exposed.
Seeing as New Zealand is a colony of the Netherlands (it’s called Zealand. Come on), I (on behalf of your True Queen Beatrix) demand that the decision be reversed.
When i was still living in Australia, a few years back, Irving wanted to come there and speak. The Australian government found an excuse to deny him a visa.
I thought it was a bad idea then, and i think it’s a bad idea that NZ is doing it now. As others in this thread have suggested, morons like Irving thrive on the sort of publicity that bannings like this generate. I believe that letting them in, and letting them speak, ultimately does much less harm than locking them out.
Sure, if you let them in they then have a soapbox from which to hold forth on their ridiculous ideas. But if you keep them out, you have basically built their soapbox for them, and you actually give them an issue upon which they can speak with some credibility–the issue of free speech.
For the most part, holocaust deniers and other sundry morons are only preaching to the converted anyway, and their presence is extremely unlikely to chage anyone’s mind. Furthermore, they are generally spouting such ignorance that it’s better to let people see and hear what morons they are at first hand. Shutting them out only makes people more curious, and it also gives the morons a modicum of moral high ground, because they can argue (quite legitimately) that they are being arbitrarily excluded from democratic discourse.
I say let him in, and let him make an ass of himself.
Out of curiosity, aside from the free speech issues ( and I think he should be allowed to speak for reasons Liberal and others have aptly laid out) how in the world do you make a sophisticated and “meticulous” argument that the holocaust did not occur? My father was there as a WWII Major when they were taking out some of the prisoners and bodies. How is Irving making this argument?