I would disagree with your interpretation of the evidence that came out at the trial, cart.
The whole nature of Irving’s scholarship was thoroughly reviewed in the libel trial in England: Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat, [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000). Penguin Books published a book by Deborah Lipstadt, in which she concluded that Irving denied that the Holocaust occurred. Irving sued for libel. In their defence, the defendants argued that what they had said was true: that Irving denied that the Holocaust occurred.
One expert who testified on behalf of the defendants was Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge. He prepared a detailed analysis of Irving’s work; that report was over 700 pages long. The Anti-Defamation League quotes these two passages from the report:
Any figure inbetweeen rougly 3.5 and 7 million would be reguarded as academically correct. Most people go for the figure of 5.5 million given at the Nuremburg trials or the rounded 6 million version of that figure.
The truth is due to the nature of the event we cannot put a definte figure, though all methods of counting would give you a figure in the order of the mid-millions.
While these people are clearly motivated by hate, imprisoning them is wrong as could it could stop geniune historians from putting out versions of history that people dislike, even if they were factually correct.
Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased)
I know Beagle can make his own responsse, but if I could jusst comment here. I don’t think anyone is denying the German’s have the right to do what they want, the question is should we deport a person back to a country that persecutes people for their beliefs?
Irving was not charged or convicted of any crime. As indicated in my previous post, Irving chose to sue Penguin Books and Ms. Lipstat for libel on the basis of their comments on his standards of scholarship, which is a civil action. He took them to court, not the other way around, and lost.
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. Especially since criticism of the speech laws could fall under the speech laws.
It’s amazing how the world criticizes the United States with insane vitriol, as if we are the devil incarnate. Meanwhile, I question one German law - as if Germany has an unblemished legal tradition - and I’m the bad guy. [/Tony Montana] The ‘world’ dishes out much better than it takes.
I did not really want to go pick throught Zundel’s crap for this topic. If you all say that there is incitement to violence, I’ll at least sleep better knowing someone is going to jail for what they said. You all can pretend that there is no slippery slope. Just whistle as you walk past it. Meanwhile, I want some of the Stalinists who apologize for KJI - death camps and all - to be charged with a crime. Not really, but the hypocrisy is starting to cause an abrasion.
What kind of refuge is Zundel planning to find in Canada? Hate speech is one of the only issues that has been used as justification for restricting freedom of expression for the good of the country.
Zundel has no expectation of receiving any sort of refugee or asylum status in Canada. I’m not even sure who he’s claiming to be persecuted by - he’s fleeing the US for kicking him out for overstaying a visa, isn’t he? Any claims of unjust prison terms in Germany would be rather amusing, since his rants would also be offenses under the Canadian Criminal Code, and he has a long history of court battles in Canada. His application for refugee status is strictly a stunt to publicize his heinous views.
Sorry, bub. If you want to incite hatred without legal hassles, you’ll have to find a way to get into the US. It’s the one of the few countries around that considers freedom of speech to be more important than freedom from incited hatred.*
*This is in no way meant to imply that the American position is wrong, merely that it is in the minority.
The same right? The right to say what one wants and the right to kill someone are “the same right”? I don’t think that it’s at all unreasonable to insist that freedom of speech is a basic human right, and murder is not.
candida
You clearly don’t know what the phrase “beg the question” means.
And the Americans are allowed their priorities which are allowed to be different from German priorities. And one of those priorities is criticizing regimes that deny their subjects basic human rights. Who died and made you God, to tell us we don’t have the right to criticize the Germans?
MC Master of Cermonies Norman Davies, a leading European historian was quite disturbed by the Irving ruling, saying: “when did it become a crime to be a bad historian?” (paraphrased)
Mr Davies can take comfort that it was a civil case(brought by Irving) not a criminal case. Also, I think any law broken would have to do with being a deceiptful hate-monger rather than a “bad historian” (at least in Canada & Germany).
What a strange thing to say. It was DAVID IRVING who was suing someone for criticizing him. It was IRVING who was trying to use the apparatus of the state to censor someone else. Nobody was going after David Irving.
I get the sense Mr. Davies was not paying very close attention to the facts.
I love defending a minority position, but even moreso the right to hold a minority position. The argument that “a majority says…” holds no, zero, sway with me. Dye and Ziegler demonstrated many years ago that fundamental freedoms are always unpopular with the majority of people. Similar to the work of Stanley Milgram, it only reinforces why I’ll proudly stand among the minority that is hesitant to swing the authority stick.
If you really think that there is more danger to society from some poseur neofascist babble, than a government free to define the term “hate speech,” and punish hate speech with imprisonment, I would love to hear the rationale.
Okay, how exactly did you read into my post that I endorse hate speech laws? I merely stated that they are common. Germany isn’t the only European country with them, though theirs are the strictest, I believe. Nor was I attempting to imply that the majority is in the right here, and most certainly not justified merely by being in the majority.
As a matter of fact, I am extremely ambivalent with regards to these laws. I am as wary as anyone about the dangers of using the coercive power of the state to dictate the limits of acceptable public discourse. However, freedom of speech isn’t unrestricted, even in the US, and no, I’m not talking about shouting ‘Fire!’ Unless I’m badly mistaken, there are statutes in the US against uttering threats and inciting riots as well. The difference between speaking to an unruly mob using language likely to result in said mob engaging in destructive behaviour, and speaking to a broader audience using language designed to incite hatred against a group of people, and thus increase the likeliness of violent acts against that group, is a difference of degree, and not of kind. Action and speech are causally related, and ignoring the impact of the latter on the former is foolishness. Governments differ over where to draw a line between freedom to express opinions and restrictions against speaking in ways which predictably lead to violence, and this is not surprising, as it is not an easy question. You may think the answer is obvious. I do not think it is. I am extremely uncomfortable with restricting freedom of expression. But I am also extremely uncomfortable knowing that, for example, the anti-gay filth spewed by Fred Phelps results in a higher rate of violence against gays. And while the small-minded people who listen to Fred are primarily to blame for that violence, it is simple fact that Fred is far from blameless himself, yet he cannot be held accountable.
I don’t like either option here. I tend to think we should err on the side of allowing expression of opinion, but I don’t think we can completely ignore the consequences of certain sorts of speech either.
Your concern about the danger in governments being able to define hate speech is at least somewhat misplaced. Governments are not free to define hate speech in just any old way. The laws they pass are subject to judicial review, and must be justified in light of relevant constitutions or common law principles, else they will be struck down. If a government has managed to stuff a supreme court with syncophants who will let anything go in this regards, then you’ve got far more to worry about than restrictions on speech.
You might want to remember that the next time someone from outside of the US comments on American policies on the death penalty, gay marriage, and the like. Just because one person is convinced something is a basic human right doesn’t mean that others are bound to agree that it is. (I am not trying to ascribe to you any particular views on those topics. I don’t know what your views are. I am just pointing out that what constitutes a basic human right is by no means uncontroversial, and that on the view of many people the US denies its own citizens several basic rights that Germany respects.)
Actually it was relating not just to the Irving case (it was probably a poor paraphrase anyway), though he was also saying that David Irving did not appear to be antisemtic, just a bad historian.
Well, David Irving IS anti-semetic. It’s not a matter of rational question, really; the guy has been whining and bitching about Jews for years, often at the paid behest of anti-semetic organizations. He speaks for and supports Nazi groups. He may ALSO be a bad historian, but he’s definitely anti-semetic.
So Davies can’t be arguing THAT point, unless he hasn’t been paying much attention to David Irving.
And as to that, I still don’t get Davies’s point. Lipstadt’s writing said, in essense, that Irving was both a bad historian and a liar, both claims having substantial objective evidence to support them. What’s wrong with another historian pointing that out. But IRVING wanted it to be a crime (a civil crime, anyway) for someone to write what a shitty historian he is.
I’ll agree that human rights are contoversial. Moreover, I agree that speech can constitute a crime, or especially, a tort. I gave some examples above. There are terroristic threats laws as well, just to throw out another. What concerns me is a whole new category of criminal law punishing speech for it’s content.
I think sometimes we can get a little sidetracked trying to conflate gay marriage - which I’m for, share the joy - with something really basic like freedom of expression. The death penalty I’ve been trending away from since I did a research paper on the death penalty as implemented throughout the world my third year of law school. I don’t see why my defense of freedom of expression relates to these positions substantially. Moreover, I never consider anyone bound to agree with me. In fact, that was just my point.
I’ve almost exhausted the amount of energy I will expend for a knob like Zundel, especially if it is eventually it is going to turn out that there are some crucial missing facts. Does anyone know the maximum sentence he faces if convicted? Also, what about the specific allegations? Is it all predicated on denial of the holocaust or are there more traditional criminal allegations?
I hate researching these topics. Check the site before you bite. I found this, I think it is reasonable.
I could not find anything with answers to the questions I posed above. I chose not to go to Mr. Zundel’s site, presuming that that would be rightly viewed as a biased source.
its content… damn these foul fingers. Really, it’s my first language.
I may as well address the stuff about our supreme court sycophants. Actually, the SCOTUS has supported freedom of speech and expression more mightily than anyone could have expected a conservative court to do. Some of the votes have been close, but some have not. Do we need a separate topic on why, or not, freedom of speech is fundamental to a free society?
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’.
its content… damn these foul fingers. Really, it’s my first language.
I may as well address the stuff about our supreme court sycophants. Actually, the SCOTUS has supported freedom of speech and expression more mightily than anyone could have expected a conservative court to do. The flag burning case comes to mind.
Also, I don’t see how a neofascist nutball with few followers is a real threat to nation-states. Certainly not a threat to make one dabble in content-based criminal censorship statutes.
I guess it did go through the first time. It came back so quickly with an error message. Well, if anyone wants to respond to the first of my double posts, before the late revisions, I guess you can. It is the hijack on freedom of speech. I thought I edited it out, trying to restrain myself from always going far afield.