The David Irving controversy: Should those who hold questionable views, such as revisionist historian, David Irving, be allowed into Australia?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
This is not a free speech issue. Dr Irving has a criminal record and is associated with neo-Nazi elements. He is a vilifier, inciter and rabble-rouser
Mr Mark Leibler, a lawyer and Jewish community leader
The proper way to confront Dr Irving's arguments is with informed argument; and with him present in the country, if the only alternative is to injure again the principle of free speech
The Australian editorial, September 27.
On September 24, revisionist historian, Dr David Irving, indicated his intention to seek once more to have the ban on his entry to Australia overturned.
A spokesperson for the government has stated that Dr Irving's visa application `would be looked at on its merits'.
Some commentators have defended Dr Irving's right to express his views in public, others, especially Australia's Jewish and ethnic community leaders, have stressed their opposition to a visit from Dr Irving.
Background
David Irving is a British revisionist historian who has disputed the accepted view of Nazi atrocities committed against Jewish people during World War II.
David Irving has claimed that the number of Jewish people killed in World War II was three million, rather than the generally accepted six million.
David Irving has also disputed what is usually referred to as the `final solution'. The `final solution' is the phrase used for Nazi attempts to exterminate all Jewish people living in conquered territories in Europe. Dr Irving claims that this was not, in fact, a deliberate policy of Hitler's, and, to the extent that it occurred, was orchestrated by Goebbels.
In addition, Dr Irving has claimed that there was no gas chamber at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
In 1992, Dr Irving was fined $10,000 in Germany for `defaming the memory of the dead'. This is an offence under German law. When he appealed against the fine, it was increased to $30,000.
In the same year, Canada expelled Dr Irving as an undesirable.
Dr Irving has also been expelled from Austria for apparent involvement with neo-Nazis.
In 1994, the British High Court sentenced David Irving to prison, for three months, for contempt of court, and later he was found to have deliberately given false evidence.
The Italian border police also denied Dr Irving entry to the country at the Rome airport.
In 1986 and 1987, Dr Irving was granted entry to Australia and toured the country without incident.
In February, 1993, the Australian Government denied Dr Irving an entry visa to come to Australia a third time. This was done by the then Immigration Minister, Gerry Hand. The ban was reimposed by the next Immigration Minister, Senator Nick Bolkus.
Dr Irving was denied entry because Mr Bolkus judged he did not meet the `good character' test, one of the prerequisites before an entry visa can be granted.
Dr Irving challenged this ruling in the courts on four separate occasions and was successful once.
On July 30, 1996, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld Senator Bolkus' decision. This was the third occasion on which the court had found Dr Irving to be a person not of `good character'.
Arguments in favour of allowing revisionist historian, David Irving, into Australia
There are four major arguments offered in favour of British revisionist historian, David Irving, being allowed into Australia.
These arguments are put primarily by those who are opposed to David Irving's views, but who argue that he should be allowed into Australia to express them.
The first argument offered is that Australian law both allows an individual's freedom of speech and limits it to prevent harm to others.
This argument was put in The Age editorial of September 28. The following claim was made, `If Dr Irving does tour Australia, he will be subject to our laws of defamation and libel. Should he break them he may be charged and if convicted he could be evicted and refused entry in the future. The rule of law has been proved a great defender of both the individual's right to be heard and the community's right to defend itself.'
There is, in fact, no law which guarantees an individual's freedom of speech within Australia, however, freedom of speech is generally regarded as a significant element in Australia's democratic tradition.
The new Prime Minister, in a speech given on October 22, announced that the recent change of Federal Government marked a new climate of free speech in Australia, as opposed to the attitude of the previous government, which, Mr Howard claimed, had limited freedom of speech by an excessive adherence to political correctness.
Secondly, it is claimed, the opinions of Dr Irving are not as dangerous as some of his critics maintain.
Those who hold this view point out that Dr Irving's claims are already in wide circulation in Australia. They point out that Dr Irving has already visited Australia twice, his books are available for sale and his views have been presented in the media.
Despite this, it has been argued, there has been no growth of anti-semitism or neo-Nazism in Australia attributable to Dr Irving's publications, nor has there been any violent, adverse reaction to his opinions from his opponents.
The Age, in its editorial of September 28, stated, `The country is none the worse [for the dissemination of Dr Irving's views]. It is to the credit of those who have been offended by his controversial concepts that they have not reverted to extra-legal retaliation.'
Thirdly, it has been claimed that to single Dr Irving out in this manner is to give his views an importance they do not deserve.
According to this line of argument, when attempts are made to protect the Australian community from questionable views, the impression may be gained by some, that these views have some validity.
The Australian, in its editorial of September 27, stated, `Some younger people ... might infer from attempts to silence Dr Irving's views that there is something to them'.
It is argued that Dr Irving's views can be easily refuted and it would be better to allow them to be heard and then to demonstrate their inaccuracy, than to refuse to give them a hearing.
This view was put in The Australian editorial of September 27. `The proper way to confront Dr Irving's arguments is with informed argument; and with him present in the country, if the only alternative is to injure again the principle of free speech.'
Relatedly, it has been claimed, barring Dr Irving from Australia, only serves to give his views additional publicity.
This view was put by Michael Gawenda, who, writing in The Age, on September 30, stated, `The Irving ban has created an Irving monster ...' Mr Gawenda elaborated this view in the same article, stating, `The fact is that the ban on Irving ... has given him a profile and a voice in the mainstream Australian media that he does not, on any reasonable reckoning, deserve.'
The same view was put by the Herald Sun, in its editorial of September 28, which stated, `To deny Dr Irving entry is to risk giving him a notoriety that gives undue prominence to his views.'
Fourthly, Dr Irving himself, some of his supporters, and others, have argued that the case against him as an undesirable immigrant will not hold.
Dr Irving has claimed that his supposed criminal record is the result of a series of activities that should not be regarded as offences.
Dr Irving has referred specifically to a $30,000 fine imposed on him in Germany in 1993.
The fine was, Dr Irving claims, imposed on him because he maintains that the gas chamber shown to visitors at the former Auschwitz concentration camp was, in fact, built after the war.
Dr Irving notes that in Germany it is an offence to `defame the memory of the dead'. Dr Irving states it was on this basis that he was charged, convicted and subsequently fined. This, Dr Irving claims, was unjust.
Dr Irving further claims that, in 1995, Polish authorities admitted that the gas chamber building on show to visitors was built in 1948.
Dr Irving complains that the fine and accompanying criminal record should not still stand and have contributed to his being regarded as an undesirable immigrant in Germany and elsewhere.
Dr Irving's overall view is that the only offence he has ever committed is to seek to disseminate his views and that this should not be regarded as an offence in any free country.
Arguments against allowing revisionist historian, David Irving, into Australia
The first argument offered against allowing David Irving into Australia is that he does not meet the formal criteria for entry, as he cannot be seen as a person of `good character'.
Those who make this claim, refer to the fact that he has been found guilty of the criminal offence in Germany of `defaming the dead' and further that he has been imprisoned in England. They also point to the number of other countries, including Canada, that have either denied Dr Irving entry or expelled him from their borders.
The recent Federal Court judgement, upholding Senator Bolkus' decision to deny Dr Irving a visa to visit Australia, has been cited as evidence of Dr Irving's unsuitability.
In this Federal Court judgement, Justice Davies supported the continued denial of a visa to Dr Irving with the following explanation, `it was not in dispute that Dr Irving had been convicted of an offence in West Germany and expelled therefrom, that he had been deported from Canada for breach of Canada's migration regulations, that there was a warrant for his arrest in Austria and that he had been refused entry to Italy and South Africa ... it would seldom be that a person of good character had been expelled from or refused entry into so many countries.'
The second argument put, in addition to Dr Irving not being of the requisite `good character', is that his presence represents a threat to public peace and order and he therefore is an undesirable person to enter the country.
Mr Mark Leibler, a lawyer and Jewish community leader, has stated, `This is not a free speech issue. Dr Irving has a criminal record and is associated with neo-Nazi elements. He is a vilifier, inciter and rabble-rouser.'
Those who maintain this view argue that if Dr Irving is allowed into Australia he is likely to act as a catalyst for civil unrest. Two reasons are given for this.
The first is that Dr Irving's pronouncements are likely to arouse anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic feeling, perhaps among neo-Nazi groups.
Robert Manne, editor of Quadrant, has argued, `It seems to me that an Irving tour would fan the flames of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular.'
The same point has been made by Gerard Henderson, writing in The Age, who has claimed that since David Irving visited Australia, in 1986 and 1987, what Henderson refers to as the `lunar right' has increased its influence in Europe, America and Australia.
According to Mr Henderson, the increased following for such extreme right-wing, racist groups makes a visit from Dr Irving a greater threat to public order than was the case nine or ten years ago, when he last spoke in Australia.
It has been suggested that the second threat to public order Dr Irving represents comes from Jewish groups who are likely to be severely offended, and in some cases, outraged by Dr Irving's statements.
According to this line of argument, it is at least possible that a visit from Dr Irving would foment civil unrest because of the protests it would spark.
There is also the possibility that there could be direct confrontation between pro-Jewish groups and anti-Jewish groups at venues where Dr Irving speaks.
The third argument offered in favour of denying Dr Irving entry to Australia is that such an action would not threaten free speech in this country.
Those who hold this view claim that what is at issue is not the dissemination of Dr Irving's views. Instead they claim that the crucial issue is the manner in which these views are disseminated.
In particular, they argue, it is important that Dr Irving not be given a chance to express his views personally, because, as has already been noted, there are those who believe he would form a focus for popular disturbances.
Purely on the question of free speech, many of his critics note that Dr Irving's books are available in Australia and that his views have been freely reported by the Australian media. This, they argue, shows that Dr Irving has neither been censored, nor denied freedom of speech.
Robert Manne, editor of Quadrant, has stated, `If anyone were to suggest that Irving's books or media interviews with him should be banned, undoubtedly the principle of free speech would be under threat.
As it happens, so far as I am aware, no one has suggested this kind of ban.'
This view is summed up by Michael Kapel, editor of the Australian/Israel Review. Mr Kapel has stated, `Defenders of David Irving argue that, unpleasant as his views are, they should not be censored. But in bookshops you can buy his works.'
Mr Kapel claims that there have been no restrictions placed on the publication and dissemination in print of Dr Irving's views, rather `it is his rabble rousing, vilification and incitement which are of legitimate concern to responsible authorities.'
The fourth argument offered is that if Dr Irving were allowed into the country his presence would give unnecessary offence to Jewish survivors of Nazi concentration camps and their relatives who are now living in Australia.
Robert Manne has stated, `I simply cannot see why people whose lives have been ruined in the Holocaust have to endure a nationwide tour by a man who argues that their families did not really perish and that they are only claiming that they did because of psychiatric disorder or for sordid financial gain.'
The same view has been put by Dr George Szego, a consultant psychiatrist who is also a survivor of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp.
`During the last visit if this so-called "historian", I saw in my professional capacity that a number of Holocaust survivors suffered a marked deterioration in their physical and mental health. Their symptoms included severe angina, depressive conditions and, in one instance, suicidal thoughts. In common they felt tortured by hearing the claim that the nightmare which destroyed their lives and killed their families, did not happen.'
Finally, it has been argued, that David Irving should not be allowed into Australia, and his views debated, because to do so would give them an apparent intellectual respectability.
Robert Manne has argued this position. `In his Holocaust campaigns, Irving hopes to transform a point of view, hitherto beyond consideration, into an apparently worthwhile subject of debate ... We live in a peculiarly credulous age. Irving's target is not the intelligensia but people who dislike Asians and believe in UFOs. If such people begin to think that, on the question of the Holocaust, Irving may have a point, he will have achieved a very sinister victory indeed.'
Further implications
It is not possible to predict with certainty whether David Irving will be granted a visa to enter Australia. The recent Federal Court decision, endorsing the previous government's judgement that Dr Irving should not be allowed entry, would appear to suggest that he will probably again be denied a visa.
Mr Howard has stated that he considers Dr Irving's comments regarding the Holocaust those of a `nutter', however, Mr Howard has stated that he is not prepared to pre-empt a decision on Dr Irving's visa application.
The new government has placed itself in a rather difficult situation with regard to Dr Irving.
Mr Howard's recent endorsement of the principle of free speech and his attempt to mark a distinction between the attitudes of his government and those of the previous government on this question have left him vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy if Dr Irving is refused entry.
Dr Irving has himself suggested that if he is not permitted to come to Australia this would indicate Mr Howard is a hypocrite.
However, Dr Irving's views are highly offensive to a significant section of the Australia electorate, especially those within the Jewish community. Further, the issue is no longer argued in terms of freedom of speech, rather Dr Irving has been deemed a threat to civil order and an unsuitable person to be granted a visa.
If the Howard Government allows Dr Irving entry to Australia it may establish an awkward precedent which will make it difficult to deny entry to Australia to other would-be visitors.
For example, at the same time as Dr Irving declared his intention to apply to enter Australia, Sinn Fein leader, Mr Gerry Adams, also indicated that he would seek a visa. Both men indicated that they had been encouraged to make their applications by Mr Howard's comments on free speech.
Relatedly, Mr Howard's comments have been seen by some as an endorsement of the comments of Queensland independent, Mrs Pauline Hanson. Again, this could have awkward ramifications for the government. Mrs Hanson's anti-Asian sentiments have been said to have given offence both to Australians of Asian origin and to the Asian nations in our region. Her anti-Aboriginal comments have been similarly offensive to many.
On the other hand, Mrs Hanson's statements have been said to have met with significant support within some sections of the electorate. Politically, it has been suggested it is going to be difficult for Mr Howard to either openly disavow Mrs Hanson's comments or to defend her right to make them.
One of the underlining factors in this debate within Australia appears to be the extent to which the question of free speech has become caught up with the public expression of racial intolerance. Thus, those with a liberal outlook have found themselves in the position of either having to call for limits on free speech or of apparently endorsing racially intolerant views.
The other alternative, to speak publicly against views which your society has allowed to be expressed has not been widely taken up by the government.
It is concerning that Mrs Hanson's anti-Aboriginal and anti-Asian views appear to have considerable electoral support. This would seem to indicate that there could be a growing number of Australians who are also anti-semitic and whose anti-Jewish feeling could be fed by Dr Irving's pronouncements.
Of even greater concern is the apparent existence of a large group of Australians who see themselves as disadvantaged and previously closed out of the political system while special interest groups, such as ethnic minorities, were advantaged. This combined sense of grievance and hostility toward minorities is a potentially dangerous combination.
On an international front it would appear that the more open approach toward which the Australian Federal Government appears to be moving regarding the public expression of certain views is not that of many other countries.
Most countries Dr Irving has recently sought to enter have decided he is an unsuitable person to whom to grant a visa.
In a further development the British Labour Party has foreshadowed a bill which would make it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust. The offence would carry a two-year jail term.
Sources
The Age
26/9/96 page 3 news item by Laura Tingle and Caroline Milburn, `Howard denies backing racism'
27/9/96 page 4 news item Gareth Boreham, `Let Irving in: Kennett'
27/9/96 page 13 comment by David Irving, `Why I should be free to speak in Australia'
28/9/96 page 26 editorial, `Saying yes to an unwelcome visitor'
30/9/96 page 11 comment by Michael Gawenda, `Giving Irving a voice is lesser of two evils'
1/10/96 page 10 letter to the editor, `Why the torture for Holocaust survivors?'
1/10/96 page 11 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Two sides of the same coin'
The Australian
25/9/96 page 1 news item by John Short, Chip Le Grand and Rachel Hawes, `Banned historian puts PM to the test'
27/9/96 page 12 editorial, `Better to be Irving's host than censor'
30/9/96 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, `Let them defend the indefensible'
2/10/96 page 17 comment by Robert Manne, `Why we should ban Irving'
The Herald Sun
26/9/96 page 19 comment by Michael Kapel, `Don't let this man in'
28/9/96 page 18 editorial, `Speaking freely'
30/9/96 page 23 news item by Steve Connolly, `Move to outlaw Holocaust denial'
1/10/96 page 18 comments from Ian Dunn and Mark Leibler, `Should David Irving be allowed into Australia?'