Europe has always been oddly strict on this. UK and US alike take a different tack- that if you want to make an idiot of yourself denying the Holocaust, then do so. Locking people up for it hardly solves any problems and only aggravates those who see a conspiracy behind it.
David Irving is a very famous historian and big expert on the Nazi period- it was he who was the main voice in discrediting the Hitler diaries, for example.
His view on the Holocaust have been well known- he is not in agremeent that it happened. It is worth noting, though, that that's a hazy thing to say; he's not denying Germans killed Jews in large numbers, what he questions is the extent to which gas chambers were used to make it systematic. He is certain that far less died than is commonly said, and those that did die died mostly of old-fashioned murder and malnutrition; he thinks the gas chambers were only used in a limited sense and it is the systematic elimination he has denied.
Which is controversial and probably silly but not heinous. A few years ago, he tried to sue an American academic for attacking his views; he lost the case and at this time it was specifically pointed out that his views were not illegal in US or UK. His case was not helped because behind the veneer of the respectable historian trying to advance a radical view, the case revealed that he does actually have rather nasty facist/racist tendencies- clearly not illegal, but it didn't help his reputation at all.
However, this charge in Austria relates to a tour he made some fifteen years ago, at a time when his views were more extreme- he didn't think gas chambers were used at all back then. He contends his views have changed since then as the evidence has, from outirght denial to the view I outlined above. This in mind... he really wasn't expecting a jail sentence like this for it, so much later.
He pleaded guilty, btw. He said that it was an absurd law but as it is written he did indeed break it. He really didn't think he'd get jail time.
It does look silly.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Europe has always been oddly strict on this. UK and US alike take a different tack- that if you want to make an idiot of yourself denying the Holocaust, then do so. Locking people up for it hardly solves any problems and only aggravates those who see a conspiracy behind it.David Irving is a very famous historian and big expert on the Nazi period- it was he who was the main voice in discrditing the Hiter diaries, for example.
His view on the Holocaust have been well known- he is not in agremeent that it happened. It is worth noting, though, that that's a hazy thing to say; he's not denying Germans killed Jews in large numbers, what he questions is the extent to which gas chambers were used to make it systematic. he is certain that far less died than is commonly said, and those that did die died mostly of old-fashioned murderand malnutrition; he thinks the gas chambers were only used in a limited sense and it is the systematic elimination he has denied.
Which is controversial and probably silly but not heinous. A few years ago, he tried to sue an American academic for attacking his views; he lost the case and at this tiome it was specifically pointed out that his views were not illegal in US or UK. His case was not helped because behind the veneer of the respectable historian trying to advance a radical view, the case revealed that he does actually have rather nasty facist/racist tendencies- clearly not illegal, but it didn't help his reputation at all.
However, this charge in Austria relates to a tour he made some fifteen years ago, at a time when his views were more extreme- he dodn't think gas chambers were used at all back then. He contends his views have changed since then as the evidence has, from outirght denial to the view I outlined above. This in mind... he really wasn't expecting a jail sentence like this for it, so much later.
He pleaded guilty, btw. He said that it wa a n absurd law but as it is written he did indeed break it. He really didn't think he'd get jail time.
It does look silly.
Question how can he be found guilty for a law which came in 14 years ago for something he said 20 years ago Ush? I was under the impression he had repeated himself on a book signing much more recently. The news story quotes 89 also as the time he said it. Weird stuff.
The logic that says he could be tried on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.
The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.
He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.
Now, that seems all very good and logical and is the logic being applied here, but I think many would say that the pracitcality of this situation makes that direct allegory absurd; it's a bit much to retroactively take comments he made in an academic tour for which no-one thought were ever going to be of any consequence, and make them more illegal.
It's worth noting, btw, that Irving wasn't caught after some vast 15 year manhunt. He went back to Austria last November to give a lecture tour, at which point they promptly arrested him under that old warrant.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The logic that says he could be tired on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.
He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.
Now, that seems all very good and logical and is the logic being applied here, but I think many would say that the pracitcality of this situation makes that direct allegory absurd; it's a bit much to retroactively take comments he made in an academic tour for which no-one thought were ever going to be of any consequence, and make them more illegal.
It's worth noting, btw, that Irving wasn't caught after some vast 15 year manhunt. He went back to Austria last November to give a lecture tour, at which point they promptly arrested him under that old warrant.
I knew pretty much all that, however, the concept that a law could be introduced outlawing something you have said in the past tmz, and you could be found guilty under it. Is despite being sound, pretty silly in my opinion.
Originally posted by Df02
i really dont understand how you can justify giving someone jail time for this... if he participated in the holocaust then yea, inprison him, but not for denying or justifying it... however wrong he is, he shouldnt be inprisoned.
WEll the Austrians along with many other nations would disagree.