BS: David Irving goes to prison.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:37 PM

The relevant Austrian law is from 1947 and can be safely said to have been strongly influenced by Allied ideas. I was wrong, however, about the German law. It came later, at a time when there was no specific Allied pressure anymore.

The Austrian law (Verbotsgesetz) starts by prohibiting the NSDAP and all other Nazi organisations. Then comes a very long paragraph 3 which is the relevant paragraph here. It starts (roughly) "It is prohibited for everyone, even outside of the ...(Nazi)... organisations to work for the NSDAP or its aims in any way".

Then follows a very long list of what that means and a few pages later in Paragraph 3h (the relevant Irving paragraph) it says with many more words that anyone who in print, radio... denies (or plays down, or approves of,...) the Nazi genocide or the Nazi crimes is to be punished with 1 to 10 years of imprisonment, if he is dangerous with up to 20 years.

(BTW, the correspopnding German law punishes with up to 5 years.)

3 years out of 1 to 10 (assuming that Irving is not dangerous) without probation for a repeated crime seems quite normal to me. The state attorney has already lodged an appeal for he thinks the sentence is too low.

The interesting question will be in the appeal proceedings whether the recanting is believed or not. If it is believed a probation sentence could be thought of. The judges have not believed the recanting for the obvious reasons Redhorse has mentioned above.

As I said the meaningfulness of the law can be debated, but as long as it exists any sentencing has to follow the law.

Wolfgang, it is disingenuous to suggest that Austria has no options. For a start, Austria's record in dealing with war criminals is worse than any country's... (Peter K)

Peter, do you mean to say that a lack of performance of a state's duty in one area should necessitate a similar lack in another area?



Now to the Staatsvertrag of 1955 between Austria and the four Allies. Austria became a free country with several restrictions (without any time limit). One funny restriction is that Austria may not become a monarchy reigned by members of the former Habsburg family. One other interesting restriction is by the way that Austria is not allowed to join Germany in any way (that made some difficulties when they joined the EU). The relevant paragraph is paragraph 9 (I use my words):

Austria may not allow any form of the NSDAP or any form of Nazi activity or propaganda (my emphasis). The threat of punishment for such crimes has to continue.

Then comes paragraph 10: "Austria commits (obliges) itself to uphold the principles that are layed down in the laws... (concerning the NSDAP etc. in the sense of paragraph 9)... approved by the Allied Commission for Austria after 1.5. 1945 and to continue their implementation"

Well, I doubt there would be a war if the Austrians now opted for a Habsburger monarchy again. After so much time lapsed, some of the paragraphs read a bit out of time. But at the moment Austria has not the alternative to revoke these laws without violating the founding Staatsvertrag.

This particular clown is surely not worth to start a serious debate whether all regulations of the Staatsvertrag are still meaningful.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: DougR
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:49 PM

It seems to me that jailing someone because he or she states an opinion is ridiculous.

Irving is not my kind of guy, but he has a right to an opinion.
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:17 PM

DougR - too blunt. It's not just any old opinion,Irving is not any old opinion-holder.
The Austro-German laws are about one specific situation, one where spouting any old view can actually be DANGEROUS.

If the fact of the Shoah (Holocaust) is denied, then that denial being in a class of its own could lead to disaster. Especially when we have already seen how democratic (sic) governments can close down debate, treat merely contrary views as treasonous, then allowing holocaust denial is a different ball game from French Revolution denial. Look at Iran

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:23 PM

Do mass murders and child molesters have a right to the opinion that what they do is 'not wrong', or is that only 'our opinion'? This is highly relevant to certain Australian individuals at the moment, there being pressure to lock them up and never let them out.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:31 PM

This is highly relevant to certain Australian individuals at the moment, there being pressure to lock them up and never let them out.

I was tempted to post that most Autralians are bloody convicts any way but I thought that was in poor taste and decided not to post it.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:32 PM

Ooops!

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:46 PM

It would be ironic that when the appeal is sent in the official resonses is:

David Irving? We deny that any evidence exists for a conviction of anyone under that name.

17 years should be long enough for the Austrian courts to keep this up.

Then they could recant - and then deny it again for another 17 years.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:12 PM

Thanks for all the info Wolfgang.

I think perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making in that bit you quoted, but I now realise that I might already by then have misunderstood a point you were making in your first post.

I thought you were suggesting that Austria was merely giving effect to legislation imposed by the Allies, and that therefore the Austrian court had no option but to jail Irving. I referred to Austria's indifference about pursuing war criminals to show that there had been similar scope for discretion in Irving's case. There would hardly have been an international outcry if the police had allowed him to continue his journey to the border. (I'm not here saying whether they were right or wrong, just that they had a choice.)

One other thing, Wolfgang: are you sure that the merits of the case will be heard again at appeal? I would have assumed that as only the sentence is being challenged, the only issue would be whether the punishment fitted the crime. I do take your point that both sides are challenging the sentence, and that the sentence could be varied either way. For what it's worth, I'm sure it will not be increased and fairly sure it will be decreased.

Foulestroupe, I would say that yes, child molesters etc are entitled to their opinions. If you start tampering with that, you've descended into the territory of the thought police. I suppose I should add, in case someone misunderstands, that I think no-one is entitled to molest children.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 03:39 AM

I never had much sympathy for Irving and have not yet been persuaded to muster any. At the end of the day, we do not make the law in Austria. The Austrians do and the rest of us simply need to observe the law when we are there or face the consequences.
David Irving already broke the law there once and then decided to return and repeat his offence against Austrian law again. He has been jugged and it is his own fault.
I personally dislike like genital mutilation of women, sexist legislation, public floggings and executions. I have every (legal)right to speak my mind on the subject in any number countries. I may well have a moral right to do this in Saudi Arabia. However, if I choose to exercise this "moral right" in Saudi Arabia, how much sympathy can I expect from Mudcatters?

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Pied Piper
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 06:02 AM

All there is to know about Adolph Eichmann

EYES - Medium
HAIR - Medium
WEIGHT - Medium
HEIGHT - Medium
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES - None
NUMBER OF FINGERS - Ten
NUMBER OF TOES - Ten
INTELLIGENCE - Medium

What did you expect?
Talons?
Oversize incisors?
Green saliva?
Madness?

(Leonard Cohen in Flowers for Hitler)

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM

alanabit, "you may well have a moral right..." May well?? I hope you would find that there are a few Mudcatters, at least, who regard Saudi Arabian justice as no justice at all and who would rally to your cause if you fell foul of it.

By the way, if you read the thread you will see that your assertion that Austrians make the law in Austria is not quite right, particularly in this specific case. As the Austrian legislature was abled to amend the relevant law in the 1990s I suspect they could also have revoked it if they'd wished, but Wolfgang may know more about that.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:49 AM

David Irving is a man who reveres Hitler, hates Jews, and attempted to persuade the world through falsifying historical evidence that the Holocaust did not happen, and that in fact it was concocted by a conspiracy of Jews.

He is exactly the sort of person this legislation was created for.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:57 AM

Freda, you omitted "and teh arrogant shit truly believed that he would get off, perhaps with just a fine."

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 11:49 AM

Peter,

I think there would have been a kind of outcry by those who know the law exists.

I have no idea whether the merits of the case will be heard again at appeal. In Germany, it depends (on a lot of things) whether that happens or not. We even have two different words for it but both are translated as 'appeal' in my dictionary.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 03:08 PM

Peter, what I was really trying to draw attention to, was the fact that Irving went to great lengths to provoke the law in Austria. So in my opinion, he has little reason to bleat now that the law was enforced.
I know that you have about as much sympathy with Irving himself as I do. What we are debating, is whether there was a need to send this unsavoury crank to prison. I respect your views. I find myself asking all sorts of other questions though. I don't have all the answers yet.
I know Austria fairly well. Fortunately for me, I know the more liberal and "weltoffene" side of the country. I am well aware that another side exists. Most of the Austrians I know would be unlikely to want to change their law in the light of what has happened to Irving. (That does not necessarily make either of us right or wrong).
I personally like the Holocaust denial law, because it makes life that little bit harder for liars and hate mongers to peddle their filth. I don't feel it threatens freedom of speech any more than a law which punishes bigots, who try to incite violence against blacks. I am open to persuasion that there may have been a better way of making laws. However, although we would appear to hold the legal system of (say) Saudi Arabia in similar esteem, I have no intention of going there to open a branch of CAMRA or to sing songs about the sexual excesses of The Prophet!
It isn't hard to stay out of prison in Austria. David Irving worked hard to get where he is now. May he stay there for at least another three years.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

However, if I choose to exercise this "moral right" in Saudi Arabia, how much sympathy can I expect from Mudcatters?

As you tend to get very little support from most Mudcatters for the execise of the most basic human rights on our forum - so you should expect none in the example given?

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:28 AM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 06:49 PM

BBC Radio 4 today broadcast a programme about Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books. For the next seven days the broadcast is available HERE - look for it in alphabetical order under David Irving.

In the course of the programme, Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of International History at the London School of Economics, said: "My own view was that he was a man whom you had to take seriously, even if you thought that he was quite clearly twisting and reading evidence to the benefit of his own cause." Freda, etc, please note!

Someone - maybe Watt again - said it was important that Hitler had his defenders, if only to show the weakness of his case.

At the end of the programme the presenter, Michael Cockerill, noted that Irving had now been jailed. He said Deborah Lipstadt's response to that had been to say that "jailing Irving, as opposed to arguing him, risked turning him into a martyr. The most potent way to fight lies is not with censorship or incarceratioin but with the truth."

My view entirely. The Austrian judiciary now has time to regroup and replace the three-year sentence with something more in tune with the times.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Feb 06 - 08:05 AM

And a more serious apology: I singled out Freda wrongly, having confused her with the faceless guest of 21 Feb (6.13pm). Sorry Freda.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 01:22 AM

In a new interview he still says he does not believe that the Natzis carried out a systematic campaign to wipe out European Jews.

His reason apparently is that there were too many survivors!

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 02:43 AM

alanabit, this is such a good thread and I agree with everything you have said - there are a lot of reasons to be concerned, it is a very complex situation. Wolfgang has explained a lot - i have learnt a lot from all comments on this thread. and Peter, no problems,

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 04:08 AM

There really is no excuse for Irving to spout such nonsense. Most of the Holocaust was meticulously documented by the perpetrators themselves. There are also thousands of documents accesible and plenty of excellent literature, by among others, Dr. Guido Knopp and his team of researchers at Frankfurt University. His way of thinking seems to be that if he shouts a lie loud enough and often enough, someone will believe it. It was Hitler who said early in his career, "If we are going to tell a lie, it had better be a big one". There can be some debate about whether people should be locked up for shouting lies. There can also be some debate about whether that is the right tactic or not. However, by no stretch of the imagination can Irving's incarceration be attributed to anything except his own arrogance and stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:37 AM

agreed. and it's about establishing truth - what is truth? repeat WHAT IS TRUTH? when events have happened, why do people project their twisted perception of reality and try to "redefine" or remake history? what inner need does it serve, to make our own version of the world?

in any situation, people can argue, philosophise, justify or deny - as armchair critics we have the right to speculate, debate and discuss - but courts are about establishing beyond doubt whether events under examination actually happened or not. A scientific process, conducted through the examination of evidence.

there may be debate as to the punishment meted out to irving. but there is no debate as to whether the Holocaust happened.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Roughyed
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:57 AM

Irving is always described as a historian but in the potted biographies I have seen (not many admittedly) I haven't seen any academic qualifications.

There seem to be two questions here. Is the Austrian law right and should Irving have been jailed under it. As some have posted above if you go to a country, break the law quite publicly and then return you can expect what you get. I think that Irving uses Holocaust denial as a way of taunting Jews and I think that is unacceptable. Not being an Austrian I can't really appreciate how important or not this law is to them but it must make it more difficult to be a Nazi in Austria and that is no bad thing. I think repeating racist lies reinforces them.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 07:40 AM

"In a new interview he still says he does not believe that the Natzis carried out a systematic campaign to wipe out European Jews.

His reason apparently is that there were too many survivors! "


They just ran out of time!

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:34 AM

Foulestroupe, it would be a reasonable courtesy to give a source when you quote directly. In any case there is a more coherent account of what he said on BBC radio HERE on the BBC website. (In an interesting illustration of how easy it is to lose sight of objectivity when emotions have been aroused, the BBC originally headed this item: "Irving repeats Holocaust denial." But they quickly reined in and replaced that with the present heading.

All that aside, I'm going to have one more go at this issue, from a slightly different tack.

It is plain that most of those who think Irving got what he deserved share my deep dislike of the man. But that dislike should not be a factor in how he is treated. In fact it is a complete irrelevance. The point at issue is perfectly simple: should anyone be jailed for what he says? Should anyone, indeed, be jailed for "his own arrogance and stupidity," as seems to be good enough reason for alanabit?

For me, Voltaire's famous take on free speech is one of the high watermarks of civilisation, and a guiding principle. But how could I hold to that if at the same time I allowed myself the indulgence of cherrypicking when to apply it and when to ignore it? Free speech is a patent nonsence if it means only the freedom to say what we want to hear.

Deborah Lipstadt - not only a respected historian but also someone who lost family to the Holocaust - has seen beyond one wretched little man to support a greater cause. Set against that level of objectivity, some of the reaction here to Irving's jail sentence looks small-minded indeed. If he serves the three years, I hope that this will produce the sense of satisfaction that some Mudcatters seem to need.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:34 AM

If jailing Irvine might turn him into a martyr, and jailing juvenile offenders turns them into hardened criminals, both of which have been touted as truisms, then why do we bother to jail anybody at all?
We could let the families of murder victims kill whoever they think is the perpetrator, we could give juvenile offenders tickets for holidays in exciting places, we could castrate all sex offenders!
Silly? Yes of course it is, if someone knowingly breaks a law, [and allegedly boasts beforehand that he is going to do it], of course he deserves to go to jail.
Holocaust denial? Funny phrase but in essence a law that in a decent world would have no meaning.
The law on vagrancy in England was I believe brought in after the Napoloenic wars to stop returning soldiers wandering round the country getting into trouble. The law still stands, but what price Napoleon coming back?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 03:28 PM

Ah Peter, I do not think Irving should be jailed only for his arrogance and stupidity. (I freely admit that is enough to wipe out any lingering trace of sympathy I had for him though). Irving effectively dared the Austrians to imprison him. I actually agree with most of what you say about freedom of speech. Indeed, the way we react to those, whom we dislike is a good test of our commitment to it.
David Irving is not fighting for freedom of speech. He is fighting for freedom to lie. That is not a freedom I will ever support. He deserves that "freedom" no more than the other racists, who shout lies and try to provoke violence against ethnic groups. He has had his day in court. Overwhelming evidence of lying has been presented against him. We reach the point where the verbal harrasment of a woman, by a stalker, needs to be evaluated for the effect, which it will have on the woman. My view is that David Irving has crossed a similar line. It appears to be the view of the Austrian court too. Irving has essentially told the Austrians that their law stinks. They ignored it once. This was not possible when he returned.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 07:32 PM

how dangerous does a thought have to be before you understand that we need protection from it.

this is a man with no love for our ideals of freedom and decency, with no reverence for the blood sacrifice of our parents generation.

in every society there are those who try to legitimise their hatred for their fellow man with some excuse. sometimes it is just hurtful, like thatcher pretending that all those people she took jobs away from, somehow deserved their years of poverty and societal neglect.

the people that irving stands up for, are many leagues beyond that.

don't give them anything. not a kind thought, not a word of compassion and never pretend they have a right to occupy a legitimate status in any human encampment on the face of the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 09:50 PM

Peter,

The direct quote is from above in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: gecko
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 04:32 AM

Heard on Australian ABC Radio National this morning - "David Irving deserves to languish in the obscurity he so richly deserves"

Beautifully put!

YIU

gecko

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: GUEST,UK poll: 15% say Holocaust exaggerated
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:34 AM

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FF6C9D1-33E8-4635-94BC-AFAFD9B29BB3.htm

15% is a lot. and as much as that pains me to see those figures, that tells me that indeed it is 'wrong' to imprison Irving for having an opinion. I fear that here we are, many of us completely agreeing to the imprisonment of a man because we find his opinion repulsive?

Gallileo springs to mind? And before people say, there is no comparison, in retrospect maybe not, but retrospect is an easy thing centuries down the line, and although i don't like irvings opinion, i say shame on us, myself also in the past, who would want a a man behind bars for speaking his MIND, not our mind, his mind.

There was a time when the circles we all love to participate in was the bastion of freedom, i fear that the way we are going, the right in the UK will make ever more strides. I was in my local the other day and i listened to a conversation by some fellow folkies discussing that Nick Griffin was a freedom-fighter! Scoff if you wish, though i hope i hear some reasoned response to this, and not mere bashing, which again, is driving people to the right.

If irvings opinions roughly have 15% vague support, how can we, condemn that whole section of society?

More and more the left is bashing the little guy. I see a thread on here, now closed, about Billy Bragg wanting a CD stopped. I went to se Billy years ago, he was great, i was young and felt he was the defender of traditional freedoms etc, but although i hate the BNP, now he talks about stopping their cd's and beating them up. I am a man of peace, and i fight the right with my words every time the occasion is there.

Of course i fear that my post will only result in me recieving a bashing, which if the case, shows how intolerant this place has now become too.

By the way, i am a member here, but for obvious reasons, i don't want the next folk gathering in my area to be about my 'holocaust denial' as it may be evily intepretated.

Love and respect to you ALL,

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM

Guest UK Poll, it is that 15 per cent that's got people like weelittledrummer and gecko so frightened. They lack the courage of their own convictions and fear Irving's views will win the day. Hence rather than argue with him, they have to lock him up. And truth be told, they'd throw away the key, because they can't cope with the thought that he will one day be free to resume his preaching. Against the Lipstadts of this world, they are wee little people indeed.

I'm not sure where Giok was going with his last post, but he did make the intelligent point that in many situations prison is inappropriate and counterproductive. As a former prison governor said on BBC TV (Newsnight) last night, prison should be a recourse only where it is necesary to protect the public. We don't need to be protected from unpalatable thoughts and ideas, however vociferously they may be expressed.

Alanabit raised an interesting point about verbal abuse in relation to free speech. I don't believe free speech should legitimise verbal abuse, but I can see that there's a very uncertain boundary between the two. I suppose I'd be content to let a jury decide when words amount to assault on an individual or individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:28 AM

So has it now become, when in Rome, get them to change the rules to suit you?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: GUEST,stevenrailing
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

No, but are you saying as a human we can not critisize individual nations laws?

As a member of the human race, if there is injustice, why should it be governed by boundary of nation.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

Of course we can criticise a country's laws. Indeed Peter has argued persuasively that Austria's law is unnecessary and counter productive.
There are advantages as well as disadvantages to being governed by the boundaries of a nation. Nobody claims that absolute human justice is available. However, by invoking my British citizenship, I can effectively evade (say)Saudi Arabian judicial penalties if they take exception to my religious views.
Had Mr. Irving exercised his "rights" with a little more prudence, he would not currently be enjoying the hospitality of the Austrian government.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM

I would suggest that the governments of both the UK and the US are so scared of offending Saudi Arabia that they would extradite you back there to face a charge of dropping litter!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:30 AM

1) The Holocaust happened.
2) It is against the law in Austria to say it did NOT happen.
3) He broke the law.
4)

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: GUEST,stevenrailing
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:09 PM

well it is my sincere opinion peace that it is an unjust law. The issue of whether or not the holocaust happened, which i agree it certainly did, is not at hand here, at hand is whether or not this is a good law?

It is all well and good speaking in formalities like above, 1,2,3 when it suits our political opinions to be outraged by irvings belief, but if say one of our folk musicians on here played a gig in Iran and was imprisoned, would you be so formal and pro-law?

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM

Singing drinking songs in Iran might show a clear commitment to a certain folk culture. It would also be an act of crass insensitivity and rudeness to the local population. No, there should not be a law to outlaw the singing of those songs. If someone is stupid enough to go and provoke the locals anywhere, they must expect to face the consequences.
There is no necessity for anyone to sing about the glories of drinking beer among Muslims. I don't think you would find much sympathy for an idiot,who did that,on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:23 PM

Which in a nutshell is what Irving did in Austria, he was rude and disrespectful, and he was being intentionally provocative.
I don't know how old the people are on this thread but I suggest that only the more advanced in years like myself will understand why this law was put in place in Austria. Not being patronising just a thought.
Look how in the UK they still make jokes and films etc about the Nazis, it is a folk memory, and in Austria with their history it must be even worse.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: GUEST,stevenrailing
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM

There is no necessity for anyone to sing about the glories of drinking beer among Muslims. I don't think you would find much sympathy for an idiot,who did that,on Mudcat.

And what if some iranians wanted to hear folk music?

Which in a nutshell is what Irving did in Austria, he was rude and disrespectful, and he was being intentionally provocative.

I'm rude and disrespectful everyday. Should i face imprisonment?

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:41 PM

It's NOT about "rude and disrespectful"
It's not even about holding offensive opinions
It's about deliberately entering another country with the sole purpose of breaking their laws!

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

Kid gets caught with a gram of hashish in Canada he/she's looking at a fine and maybe some community for a first offense. Same kid does the same thing in another country and he/she faces ten to twenty years--or maybe the death penalty. Is the law right? If it isn't then whose law is the wrong one? If I were to travel in Turkey I would not care to have a toke or two because the penalties are severe. In Canada, that isn't the case. But then I know Canadian law will not put me in the slam for a decade or more. So, steve, I know where you're coming from, but then Irving knew what he was doing, too.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

You know very well that my comment was based on one country and one incident daverailing, so twisting my words to make it seem like it is equally applicable in all scenarios is not valid.
Why do YOU feel the need to be rude and disrespectfull every day?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

It doesn't advance the argument of those who are holding out against free speech that one or two people have drawn a ludicrous equivalence between Austria and islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. I would hope and expect the UK government to intercede on behalf of any British national who was about to be (say) beheaded for proselytising Christianity in one of those countries. Though in the case of Saudi Arabia I wouldn't hold my breath - I agree completely with Giok on that point.

Emma, my understanding was that Irving accepted invitations from right-wing scum to go and address their meetings. No doubt he knew that what he would say would break the law, but that doesn't mean he went with the sole purpose of breaking the law.

The particular law in question, wherever it came from - and I no longer accept Wolfgang's suggestion that it was imposed by the Allies - stinks. It will be ironic indeed if the Irving case persuades them to reconsider it, but I think that is becoming a real possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 04:19 PM

"my understanding was that Irving accepted invitations from right-wing scum to go and address their meetings. No doubt he knew that what he would say would break the law"

I think that is what I said!

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: GUEST,stevenrailing
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

You know very well that my comment was based on one country and one incident daverailing, so twisting my words to make it seem like it is equally applicable in all scenarios is not valid.
Why do YOU feel the need to be rude and disrespectfull every day?
Giok

I don't feel the need to be rude, i just know that i often am. Should i be imprisoned? It is a sad day when we accept a law simply because it suits our political beliefs. Irving broke that law in 1988 i believe, which is a LONG time back. As a member of the human race i govern my own morality and not individual nations, not to say i don't respect them, but if i see injustice, i will speak out.

Austria in this instance has a tyrannical law. A law that says to have an opinion on an historical event is illegal. His opinions are evil and repulsive, but equally as evil is the law that prevents him his right to his opinions.

Peace, i saw you deliberetly called me daverailing, and you clearly were trying to make comparisons with the BNP man on here. Fuck off, if you can't make a point with resorting to personal attacks then you are clearly not as intelligant a person as i previously thought. No doubt it is open season on me for that remark.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:28 PM

Steve: that was not my intent at all. In fact, I complimented your choice of title and the placement of it in BS on that BNP thread. If I called you daverailing on that or any other thread, accept my apologies. It was a mistake. Believe that or not, as you choose.

Subject: RE: BS: David Irving goes to prison.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:33 PM

"You know very well that my comment was based on one country and one incident daverailing"

That was posted by my friend, Giok, not by ME. If indeed that's the post to which you refer when you told me: "Peace, i saw you deliberetly called me daverailing, and you clearly were trying to make comparisons with the BNP man on here. Fuck off, if you can't make a point with resorting to personal attacks then you are clearly not as intelligant a person as i previously thought. No doubt it is open season on me for that remark."