As I understand it, he questions whether there was a deliberate, mechanised policy of extermination as well as the exact numbers killed. I believe he accepts that there were many concentration camps where Jews died of starvation, disease and overwork but argues that a million or so deaths in these were almost to be expected in wartime.
He denies that there were specific death camps. And, in truth, there were only two main death camps, neither of them in Germany: Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka, which account for around a million deaths each. To convincingly show that there were gas chambers and crematoria specifically for human extermination is also not a walk in the park - they were so secret that only a few items of conclusive proof remains (the best, I believe, being a signed assurance by the crematoria manufacturers that they could easily dispose of thousands of bodies per month assuming three bodies per gurney.) He also denies the “six million” figure which, again, was arrived at by more ‘big-picture’ demographic means rather than by digging up 6 million bodies. (The question, of course, is where the heck all these millions of people went otherwise).
The man is an abhorrent attention whore. But if you do not learn how to rebut him, he goes unrebutted.
With rhetorical vices and logical fallacies. For example, he states, “I don’t see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It’s baloney, it’s a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?” There are two rhetorical vices: (1) homiologia, i.e., inane repetition of a point; and (2) paromologia, i.e., admitting one point of argument in order to make another. The associated logical fallacies are argumentum ad nauseam and red herring, respectively.
This is the sort of story that I react to on two different levels. The first is the intellectual level, where I firmly believe in the right of freedom to speech, not as an article of American constitutional law, but as a universal philosophical principle. I’ve got my own filters for bullshit like this, they work just fine, I don’t need anyone else to filter this stuff for me. Let the Irvings of the world say what they want. Let them shout it from the rooftops. The more these fools spread their message, the more people will be able to see it for the racist, lying, delusional crap that it really is. Freedom of speech is, ultimatly, the enemy of the dishonest. The absolute worst thing you can do to David Irving is to let him speak his mind.
The other level, however, is the emotional level, where I rejoice at any setback, no matter how trivial, suffered by those I oppose. On that level, I’m right there with calm kiwi, jeering at this racist nutjob and cutting a little caper that yet another country has decided to establish his fuckwittery in a court of law, and keep thier shores pristine of him and his toxins.
Generally speaking, I try to put more weight on the intellectual reaction, as that will lead to the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. However, since what I post on this message board will have no effect one way or the other on New Zealand immigration policies, I don’t really mind limiting my reaction to Irving’s banning to a simple “Neener neener neener!”
Believe me, my opposition to the action taken by the NZ government does not include any sympathy at all for David Irving. In fact, i don’t see any real contradiction in opposing the stifling of free speech on the one hand, and thinking “neener, neener, neener” on the other.
My annoyance at the ruling has nothing to do with David Irving in particular. It has to do with the fundamental principle of freedom of expression, as your intellectual reaction does. There’s absolutely no courage or moral high ground in supporting free speech for people with whom you agree; a person’s commitment to free speech can only really be measured when it is tested in a situation where the speech in question is one that he or she disagrees with.
I’m a bit lost by the strange assertation that the NZ government should make an exception to not allowing convicted criminals into the country. Is it because they should excuse racist agitators where they wouldn’t give the same benefit of the doubt to drug dealers? I know someone who was convicted of smuggling cigarettes from the U.S. to Canada, and was subsequently denied entry into the U.S. on the basis of that conviction. Should Irving get more consideration than that?
ON the one hand, I agree entirely with Lib on this issue. Nasty fungal infections like Irving respond well to sunlight. Cover them up, and they fester and spread.
On the other hand, I kind of feel like Americans need to be paying attention to our own Visa policy before we criticize that of other countries. We are, after all, the ones that denied Gabriel Garcia Marquez a visa to the US; I know which author I’d rather have speaking in my country, given my druthers.
On the third hand, I wonder honestly, with no real answer, whether it’s appropriate for a government, assuming the government makes decisions about who may enter the country, to make such decisions based on political views? May we deny someone a visa based on their stated desire to see all Americans die violently, even though we may not suppress a citizen’s right to express such a thought?
Actually, if Irving has a criminal record, and NZ has a firm and consistent policy of denying entry to people with criminal records, then i don’t have a problem with the decision.
It’s just that cases like this, in many countries, often involve the immigration authorities invoking rarely-used statues in order to deny entry to particular people who might be considered controversial.
For example, when Irving was denied a visa to visit Australia some years back, this was a matter of Australia’s Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs exercising a statutory power to keep out someone who was thought to be a rabble-rouser. The power includes as one possibility for denial that the applicant have a criminal record, but this is not necessary for the minister to invoke his power of exclusion. The Opposition spokeman for Immigration, Laurie Brereton, called on the Australian government to exercise similar discretion in order to refuse entry to a British National Party leader in 1998. Note that he Brereton refers to Irving in this quotation:
The text of Section 501 of Australia’s Migration Act, which allows exclusion in such cases, can be found at the bottom of the linked article.
Brereton makes very clear in the last paragraph that it is Griffin’s views that should be suppressed. I don’t think this is a good idea. Sure, he also argues that Griffin is likely to “incite racial vilification and violence,” but i think that we should hold the people who commit violence accountable for their actions, rather than banning speakers who may or may not “incite” violence. If i’m stupid enough to go out and beat people up on the say-so of some whack job on a soapbox, then i deserve whatever punishment i get.
I just think that denying such people entry gives them more publicity than allowing them to visit. Look at the Irving case. Neo-fascist websites across the world still harp on about how Australia and other countries suppress free speech. If we had let Irving into Australia, he would have preached to the converted, been ridiculed by everyone else, and the whole visit would probably be forgotten by now. Instead, it’s still a rallying cry for racist nutjobs.
And still on the Australian issue: By 2000, Irving had been denied entry to Australia on four separate occasions. In 2000, he tried again, this time on a next-of-kin reunion visit. His daughter, who lives in Australia and works for the Australian government, had become and Australian citizen. Irving was told by his lawyers that such next-of-kin visits were generally granted automotically, but Australian immigration officials confirmed that Irving would still have to pass the “good character” test. He was again denied entry.
In the current NZ case, i’m going to agree with a Kiwi Green MP, who said:
Unfortunately there are enough fuckwits here that would actually go and hear him speak and believe every word. The recent desecration of a Jewish cemetry in Christchurch shows he has an audience in waiting (though that probably came from the Israeli spy thing…Yes they are still bastards of the highest order) but if there is a valid reason to keep him out of the country that isn’t “just 'we don’t like you” I’m all for it.
I have no doubt that you are correct about this. But it’s not like he’s going to change anyone’s mind. The people who are going to “hear him speak and believe every word” have already made up their mind. And they have access to so much of his lunatic dribbling in his books and on the internet that i really don’t see what difference it makes if he’s allowed in to speak.
Anyway, as i said before, i really don’t feel sorry for him. And i’m sure New Zealand is a better place without him.
