# Holocaust Denier Seeks Refugee Status in Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794 "2003-02-22T17:07:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/41 "2003-02-24T02:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies \* \*\*I don’t claim to know much about David Irving and (with a quick bit of googling)their certainly does seem to be some evidence outside of his writings on history, but I think you are mixing him up with David _Duke_, who can only descibed as an ‘arch-antisemite’. > > Sorry, I meant to say “their certainly does seem to be some evidence that he is antisemtic outside of his writings on history”\*\* Some evidence? **Some** evidence? Actually, David Irving is a screaming anti-semite and I’d have a little difficulty trying to rank hate mongering pricks of this magnitude. Since you haven’t looked through the court case cited by **Northern Piper** [Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat, [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html#14) some of the highlights: The defendants brought 28 separate incidences into the record of the court case, (sumarized in paragraph 9.5 _(i) through (xxviii)_ of the decision). They include stating and agreeing with the theory that the Holocause, if it did happen, was brought on by the Jews themselves and that if you wish to answer the question of why it happened “… there is something of the answer in Dr. Goebbels’ diaries.”_(ii), (iii) (vii)_ He adds to the tired old idiocy about the Jews controlling the world by tossing n the idea that Churchill was bought and paid for by Jewish money and that the Jews dragged Britain into the war _(iv)_. Some assorted bon mots: > [@](#): > > _Paragraph 9.5 (vii) Speech in Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995, (p 16-19)._ > \*\*“But tell me one thing”, and this is why I’m going to get tasteless with her, because you’ve got to get tasteless, "Mrs Altman, how much money have you made out of that tattoo since 1945? [Laughter] How much money have you coined for that bit of ink on your arm, which may indeed be real tattooed ink? And I’ll say this, “half a million dollars, three quarters of a million for you alone.” \*\* > > _Paragraph 9.6 (xiii) ‘Will John Demjanjuk now Sue his Tormentors?’, Irving’s Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 10 (p 50)_ > **’The world will not easily forget how… [he] was detained in custody by his enemies for two more weeks while they thumbed through their sweaty manuals looking for some way to crush him that they might have overlooked; nor how when they failed again, these Shylocks, cheated of their prey, frogmarched him to his plane home to freedom, still in handcuffs – like a convicted criminal.'** > > _Paragraph 9.6 (xvi) 'Gold Rush!‘Diary’, Irving’s Action Report, number 11, 18 December 1996, p. 2 (p 56)._ > \*\*‘But we cannot help marvelling at the skill with which the world’s media have trod the delicate path – reporting at length on these claims without seeming simultaneously to confirm every antisemite’s distorted view of “the Jews” as people who swiftly amass huge fortunes while residing in the countries of their choice and then furtively squirrel away their ill-gotten fortunes in secret numbered bank accounts in far-away countries to avoid taxation and the other lawful burdens imposed on their host peoples.’ \*\* > > _Paragraph 9.5 (xv) Diary entry, 23 March 1996, (p 54)._ > **’I was toying with the idea of blaming the Publishers Weekly piece on Mad Jew Disease, but this might go too far. These people have no sense of humour whatsoever, these people. The slightest drop of rain falls on their butterfly-wings and they crumple into tears.'** David Duke… David Irving. Trust me, there’s plenty of room for there to be more than one anti-semite named David out and about in the world today. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/42 "2003-02-24T03:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies \* > \*\*I don’t claim to know much about David Irving and (with a quick bit of googling)their certainly does seem to be some evidence outside of his writings on history, but I think you are mixing him up with David _Duke_, who can only descibed as an ‘arch-antisemite’. \*\* Uh, no, I’m not mixing him up with David Duke. What the hell are you talking about? Irving’s a racist and a liar. It’s literally a matter of public record. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/43 "2003-02-24T03:54:19Z")
> [@](#): > > David Duke… David Irving. Trust me, there’s plenty of room for there to be more than one anti-semite named David out and about in the world today. Don’t forget our favorite-David Icke! ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/44 "2003-02-24T07:52:03Z")
Beagle The thing is that _non-authoritarian_ states also can have ‘speech laws’ (like the Germans about the Nazis or the Brits about ‘incitement to racial hatred’) without being noticeably more unfree than the US. I didn’t say you were the ‘bad guy’, I was questioning your judgement and as to the world criticizing the US with ‘insane vitriol’ I can’t say that my experience in Western Europe would bear that out, nobody has ever screamed ‘Yankee go home’ to me. Mind you, if one went around telling people like the Brits that they were on a ‘slippery slope’ (one they’ve obviously been on for hundreds of years without falling), they’d probably get somewhat miffed about American presumption. ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/45 "2003-02-24T12:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \* > \*\*I would disagree with your interpretation of the evidence that came out at the trial, **cart**. > \*\* Irving manifestly wasn’t _denying_ the Holocaust, although I don’t dispute he may well have written a bad and biased history. But as James Loewen would agree, there’s no shortage of that sort of thing. Perhaps I should follow events on more highbrow programmes than Channel Four News, where he was represented as a holocaust denier - this was supposedly the main libel to which he was objecting. And not unreasonably, as the tone of the programme made it clear that this was as near to Satan as it was possible to get. From reading (parts of) the actual verdict it seems that the issue of Holocaust denial was set aside, seemingly finding in favour of Lipstadt on the grounds that Irving had no good reputation as a historian to defame. This may be what Norman Davies was getting at. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Guinastasia_ > **Don’t forget our favorite-David Icke!** David Icke is innocent! But you’re right, he has inexplicably been accused of anti-semitism. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/46 "2003-02-24T13:09:44Z")
As I siad before, I don’t know a great deal about David Irving, so I concede he IS an antisemite. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/47 "2003-02-24T13:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cart \* > From reading (parts of) the actual verdict it seems that the issue of Holocaust denial was set aside, seemingly finding in favour of Lipstadt on the grounds that Irving had no good reputation as a historian to defame. This may be what Norman Davies was getting at. > David Icke is innocent! But you’re right, he has inexplicably been accused of anti-semitism. Well the actual jugdement is here ([http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/news/rtf/irvingjudgment.rtf](http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/news/rtf/irvingjudgment.rtf)) lot of links at [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/) > [@](#): > > from the judgement > 13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. By way of examples, I cite his story of the Jew climbing into a mobile telephone box-cum-gas chamber; his claim that more people died in the back of Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz and what is Icke innocent of? [Sanity?](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/main.html) ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/48 "2003-02-24T14:16:35Z")
David Icke is insane, anyone who goes onto _Wogan_ (a defunct primetime chatshow on the BBC) and proclaims that they are the son of God is clearly innocent of any charges of sanity (I remember reading the an inflight magazine on Kibris-Turkish Airways last year and in amongst the articles on Galatasray and Turkish Cypriot cuisine, they had an extremely odd article by David Icke on how the illuminati lizards are running the world!!!) On another Bulletin Board I post on, their is one poster who is a feverent supporter of David Icke who resolutely denys that he is antismetic in anyway. The poster is infact Jewish himself (he says that though David Icke describes the Rothschilds as illuminati lizards, this in itself is not antisemtic). Though looking at his website I found this article on David Irving: [http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/irving.html](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/irving.html) And this article on a few Jewish organisations, such as the ADL: [http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/talmud.html](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/talmud.html) ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/49 "2003-02-24T14:17:46Z")
So, sorry I should of added, David Icke does appear to be antisemtic. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/50 "2003-02-24T14:39:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cart \* > \*\*Irving manifestly wasn’t _denying_ the Holocaust, although I don’t dispute he may well have written a bad and biased history. > > … > > From reading (parts of) the actual verdict it seems that the issue of Holocaust denial was set aside, seemingly finding in favour of Lipstadt on the grounds that Irving had no good reputation as a historian to defame. This may be what Norman Davies was getting at.\*\* I’m sorry, **cart** , but I don’t understand your comments. The issue of Holocaust denial was a key question at the trial - it was not “set aside” by the judge. The judge ruled on that issue amongst others. Here’s the third from last paragraph of the Queen’s Bench decision, summarising the judge’s findings: > [@](#): > > 13.167 The answer to that question requires me to decide whether (I am paraphrasing section 5 of the _Defamation Act 1952_) the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove the truth of those charges materially injures the reputation of Irving, in view of the fact that the other defamatory charges made against him have been proved to be justified. **The charges which I have found to be substantially true include** the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; **that he is an active Holocaust denier;** that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving’s reputation. The judge clearly found that Irving “is an active Holocaust denier”, and therefore the defendants did not defame him when they said that he was. That’s a finding of fact, after an extremely lengthy trial which examined Irving’s writings in great detail. So, on what basis are you asserting that: “Irving manifestly wasn’t _denying_ the Holocaust…”? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/51 "2003-02-24T15:03:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > **What was the ‘hate crime’ that he was convicted of? Was it simple speech?** **Rhum Runner** , I’ve been hunting on the net to find out the precise charges, but without much luck. However, I have found references to other individuals being convicted in Germany of a charge of defaming the dead, and as well as denying the Holocaust as perpetrated by the National Socialist regime. Since I don’t read German, I can’t go directly to the German criminal code. ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/52 "2003-02-24T15:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Northern Piper_ > **The judge clearly found that Irving “is an active Holocaust denier”, and therefore the defendants did not defame him when they said that he was. That’s a finding of fact, after an extremely lengthy trial which examined Irving’s writings in great detail.** My mistake, based on my misunderstanding of this from the _appeal_ : > [@](#): > > 1. The judge acknowledged (4.7) that the burden of proving the defence of justification rested upon the respondents. To succeed in their defence of justification, in relation to the allegations at (i), (iii) and (vi) above, the respondents have to establish not only that the applicant is not a reputable historian, to use the expression adopted at the hearing as a form of shorthand for the allegations about his work, but also that he had a motive of his own in distorting the evidence. The second limb has not however been the subject of dispute. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Davies accepts that if the applicant is shown not to be a reputable historian, which is the central issue, his motivation is not an important issue. Mr Davies says that it is “at the margin”. It is dealt with briefly later in this judgment. Mr Davies of course rightly adds that, if the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the applicant is not a reputable historian, their case cannot be made by proving a motivation, however unattractive. The allegation of “holocaust denial” has also been put as a subsidiary issue. > [@](#): > > **So, on what basis are you asserting that: “Irving manifestly wasn’t denying the Holocaust…”?** On the basis that, as I understand it, he wasn’t. He was merely challenging details of it and attempting to play down Hitler’s culpability. He wasn’t claiming that it didn’t happen. But it seems to hinge on a certain definition of the Holocaust. Again, from the appeal : > [@](#): > > Holocaust denial > 91. This issue has taken a very subsidiary place at the hearing and in our judgment rightly so. It can be dealt with briefly. The expression “Holocaust denial” has achieved currency because of claims that the Holocaust did not occur and books written in reaction to those claims. Professor Lipstadt’s book is entitled “Denying the Holocaust” and bears the sub-title “The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory”. The first words in the preface to the original edition are: “When I first began studying holocaust denial …”. In his conclusion on meaning the judge by inference defined the Holocaust as the “deliberate planned extermination of Jews” “embarked upon” by the Nazis. > 92. The judge was entitled to hear Professor Evans’s view upon the meaning of the expression. We are not persuaded that the expression can be given any precise technical meaning or that “Holocaust denier” defines a class of persons precisely. Having regard to the views expressed by the applicant about a range of events in the history of the Third Reich, we agree with the judge that the applicant may be described as a Holocaust denier. We acknowledge that he has over the years modified, and in some respects significantly modified, his views upon some of the relevant events. However, the respondents were justified in describing him as “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial” having regard to the views he has expressed and in some respects persisted in, and the manner and force with which he has expressed them. The use of the word “dangerous” was justified by reason of his historiographical methods considered by the judge and in this judgment. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies \* > **David Icke is insane, anyone who goes onto _Wogan_ (a defunct primetime chatshow on the BBC) and proclaims that they are the son of God is clearly innocent of any charges of sanity** Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he’s not insane - although there is an outside possibility that he knows he’s talking rubbish and is just in it for the money. I’m just saying he’s not a racist, unless you count racism against extraterrestrial lizards. I remember the _Wogan_ performance. A few years later I remember reading a quote from Icke complaining that he had been suffering a nervous breakdown at the time, and was aggrieved at the way he’d been used for a cheap laugh. That all seemed to make sense. Then came the lizards… > [@](#): > > **On another Bulletin Board I post on, their is one poster who is a feverent supporter of David Icke who resolutely denys that he is antismetic in anyway. The poster is infact Jewish himself (he says that though David Icke describes the Rothschilds as illuminati lizards, this in itself is not antisemtic).** How _is_ this anti-semitic? Icke has a long list of celebrity lizards and most are not Jewish. > [@](#): > > \*\*Though looking at his website I found this article on David Irving: > > [http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/irving.html](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/irving.html) > \*\* There’s a mildly paranoid tone to this article, but nothing contentious here. He makes no comment on Irvine or the contents of his book, only making the point that Irvine should not have picked a fight he couldn’t win. Icke also makes the mistake of accusing Lipstadt of surpressing free speech which he shouldn’t do given that he clearly understands that Irvine brought the legal action. > [@](#): > > \*\*And this article on a few Jewish organisations, such as the ADL: > > [http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/talmud.html](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/talmud.html) \*\* Criticising the ADL does not constitute anti-semitism, and his motivation comes from their attacks on him (attacks which in my view destroy the ADL’s credibility). He has, I agree, slipped up by including a link to some dubious Talmud quotes, which are largely debunked by a link that he also provides. But I would be very surprised if there are no ‘objectionable’ quotes to be found there, just as there are in both the Old and New Testaments. However, Icke would be wise to take his own advice (to Irvine) and back off from this particular confrontation. Interestingly, I wonder if Christians will start to attack him, because here he as good as says that the whole religion is made up. If it makes you feel better, I now regret mentioning both Irvine and Icke. ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/53 "2003-02-24T16:07:55Z")
:smack: Irvin **g** ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/54 "2003-02-24T17:15:29Z")
Ah, the appeal. I would respectfully suggest that you’ve misinterpreted what the appellate judges were saying in paragraph 91. My reading of their reasons is that the appellant’s lawyer went over the entire evidence from the trial, examining each item in an attempt to persuade them that the trial judge erred. I read paragraph 91 as stating that the issue of Holocaust denial took up little time at the appeal, not because it was a marginal issue, but because the appellant’s lawyer was not successful in persuading them that the trial judge erred on that point. Rather, he was hoping that if he could shake the trial judge’s conclusions on some of the other points, then the “more or less” clause of s. 5 of the 1952 _Defamation Act_ would not apply. I reach this conclusion from the appellate judges’ conclusion: > [@](#): > > 1. We have expressed our views on the issues raised by Mr Davies. Limitations of time inevitably are such that Mr Davies did not address us on every single piece of evidence on which the judge relied. **In rightly being selective, Mr Davies has no doubt taken the points which he and the applicant consider to be the best ones. He has not persuaded us that it is arguable that the judge’s general conclusions were unjustified.** Where we have been invited to consider evidence in detail, it does not in our judgment diminish the soundness of the judge’s conclusions. The judge expressed his conclusion at 13.165: > > > [@](#): > > > > “My overall finding in relation to the plea of justification is that the Defendants have proved the substantial truth of the imputations, most of which relate to Irving’s conduct as an historian, with which I have dealt in paragraphs 13.7 to 13.127 above. My finding is that the defamatory meanings set out in paragraph 2.15 above at (i), (ii), (iii) and the first part of (iv) are substantially justified.” > > We agree. If you go back to sub-paragraphs 2.15 (ii) and (iii), you will see that they are the key issues of Holocaust denial. So in summary, I would submit that the appellate court judges indicated that the issue of Holocaust denial took up so little time at the hearing because the appellant’s own lawyer recognized that it was not his strongest point. (And I’ll ask you to trust me on one point: in my experience, if appellate judges don’t think you’re making any progress on a particular point, it doesn’t take up much time on the appeal! They have ways of making you move along…) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cart_ > If it makes you feel better, I now regret mentioning both Irvine and Icke. S’alright - it’s all very distasteful, but it made me look at the Irving matter in more detail and learn a bit more - always a good thing! ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/55 "2003-02-24T23:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > What was the ‘hate crime’ that he was convicted of? Was it simple speech? The articles don’t mention any violence, or even calling for violence. If his conviction was just for denying the Holocaust, I think he deserves consideration for political asylum. I don’t know of any specific conviction in Germany, but in _Denying the Holocaust_ (Free Press, 1993; Penguin, 1994, p158), Lipstadt has this to say about the West German authorities feelings about him: > [@](#): > > In December 1980 government officials informed the Bundestag that during the preceding two years two hundred shipments of neo-Nazi extremist books, periodicals, symbols, films, records, and cassettes had been shipped to the country by Samisdat Publishers [i.e. Zundel] in Toronto. In 1981, during a German crackdown on neo-Nazis, West German police discovered in hundreds of homes they raided weapons, ammunition, and explosives as well as thousands of copies of Zundel-produced material. The German Ministry of the Interior identified Zundel as one of the country’s most important suppliers of radical right and neo-Nazi propaganda material. He also apparently advocated overthrowing the FDR, or the “West German Occupation Regime” as he called it, in a revolution (p159). Since nobody has mentioned it, I’ll point out that Richard J. Evans converted his defence dossier into a fine book about the trial, _Telling Lies About Hitler_ (Verso, 2002); I believe its US title is different. [Incidentally, in his final chapter Evans discusses reactions to the trial at some length. While there was a vast amount of coverage, he does particularly single out comments by historians. But he doesn’t mention Norman Davies. Nor does a web search throw up any comments on the matter by him. If anybody has a source for the quote, I’d be interested. This isn’t a debating tactic: as a parallel example, Donald Cameron Watt was called into the witness box involuntarily by Irving, didn’t quite condemn him outright and then said some silly things in the aftermath of the verdict.] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/56 "2003-02-25T00:11:04Z")
[**Lying About Hitler** : History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial](http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?endeca=1&ean=9781402885921), Richard J. Evans Currently remaindered through Basic Books. (I believe the Trade Paperback is also remaindered.) ---
**Author:** ![SteveEisenberg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@SteveEisenberg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveEisenberg)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/57 "2003-02-25T02:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*Nobody has to die to make you god in a debate. You defend your postion. Mine is that speech laws probably seems like a good idea in every authoritarian state that has them. \*\* That much I agree with. However, Germany is not an authoritarian state. It is a free country which, like every other free country, has a few rules which seem hard for others to understand or even respect. However, given Germany’s overall high level of freedom of speech and the press, I do not see Canada as in the right if it were to open up shop as a refuge for those who violate German speech laws. Aren’t there genuine refugees from truly repressive governments whom Canada could be taking in instead? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/58 "2003-02-25T03:39:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SteveEisenberg \* > Aren’t there genuine refugees from truly repressive governments whom Canada could be taking in instead? Probably. But if you aren’t defending the right to speak of those who are saying obnoxious things, you don’t have real freedom of speech. You can salve your concience by looking for some deserving points of view to champion. Just don’t confuse this with a defense of freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/59 "2003-02-25T03:47:16Z")
Quite so, but that’s why you have a refugee board to assess claims on an individual basis, rather than an across-the-board judgment about the other country. For example, in **pyschonaut’s** original [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160121), I mentioned a decision of the Supreme Court which held that an Irish citizen could potentially seek refugee status in Canada, on the unusual facts of the case. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794/60 "2003-02-25T03:49:00Z")
Bother. That last post was referring to **SteveEisenberg’s** post, not **Xema’s.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holocaust-denier-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada/156794.md?page=4)