I should leave this one alone I suppose. I only have one last point to make.
I posted paragraph 91 not for its first couple of sentences but for the rest of it which indicate that the definition of the Holocaust is critical.
In my view Irving, whatever else he is, is not a Holocaust denier, because my definition of the Holocaust does not take in the amount of time spent in its planning, how personally involved Hitler was, the exact methods used or exactly how many victims there were. These are all appropriate subjects for historical research but regardless of the details, it’s still the Holocaust. For me, to be a Holocaust denier you have to deny that it happened at all.
However, the judges at both the original case and the appeal do not agree. It seems that for them the definition of the Holocaust includes the finer details and so to deny any of the details is to deny the Holocaust. This is the relevant part of the original case. It’s all a bit vague and I don’t blame the appeal judge for not wanting to dwell on it when it was much easier to prove Irving’s lies and bias.
Anyway, I thought I’d mention it as it made the issue clearer for me.