Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/13: Should alleged Holocaust denier David Irving have been jailed for three years?

Click here to read earlier, related issue outlines:
2000: Should those who hold discredited and potentially damaging views, such as revisionist historian, David Irving, be allowed a public audience?

1997: The David Irving controversy: Should those who hold questionable views, such as revisionist historian, David Irving, be allowed into Australia?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items specifically on this subsject: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2006 file) and enter the following word.

david
irving



Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a google search facility with which to attempt to access newspaper items still online or cached by third parties.


What they said ...
'We welcome this decision as a judgment against a man who has devoted his life to racial incitement and disparagement of the Jewish people'
Vic Aldeheff, chief executive officer, the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies

'I don't think I encourage any kind of violence, though I do try to encourage people to think for themselves'
David Irving, during an interview given in 1991

The issue at a glance
On February 20, 2006, the controversial British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years' imprisonment by an Austrian court for denying the Holocaust in a number of speeches and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
Irving pleaded guilty at the trial in Vienna and sought a lenient sentence on the grounds that he no longer questioned the existence of gas chambers at the Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz.
The sentence awarded by the court has provoked a variety of responses. There are those who simply accept that Irving received the punishment Austria has fixed for the views he expressed. There are others who argue that the nature of his views are such that they pose a direct threat to the Austrian state and so have to be rigorously discouraged.
Those opposed to the verdict see it as a suppression of free speech and a particularly dangerous one given that there has recently been a concerted attempt to prevent the publication of a series of cartoons of Mohammad, originally produced in Denmark. Some defenders of free speech have argued that principles the Western world had long taken for granted are under challenge.

Background
Holocaust denial
Holocaust deniers are people who contend that the Holocaust - the attempt by Nazi Germany to annihilate European Jewry during World War Two - never happened. According to those who hold this view, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were the result of wartime privations, not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder.
For those who dispute the Holocaust, the first hand accounts of witnesses to the mass extermination of Jews are believed to be either fabrications or psychotic delusions. Some claim that Hitler actively worked to protect Jews. It is also sometimes claimed that Jews have perpetrated a hoax about the Holocaust to gain political and financial advantage.
There are 11 nations that have laws making it illegal to deny the Holocaust. These are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.

David Irving
David Irving is the British author of several best-selling books about the military history of World War II. He is widely regarded as a Holocaust denier, although he has rejected this description and recently appeared to change his position on the deliberate mass killing of Jews at Auswitch. As a result of previous statements about the Holocaust, Irving has been barred from entering Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In 1998, he launched an unsuccessful libel suit against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher. Lipstadt had claimed he was a Holocaust denier and her judgement was upheld by the court.
David Irving has said he does not deny Jews were killed by the Nazis, but challenges the number and manner of Jewish concentration camp deaths. He has questioned the use of large-scale gas chambers to exterminate the Jews, and has claimed that the number of those who perished is far lower than those generally accepted. He has also previously contended that most Jews who died at Auschwitz did so from diseases such as typhus, not gas poisoning. He may have altered his position in relation to this last claim.
David Irving has a long publishing history. Some of his earlier works were well received by academics and critics. Over time, however, his works have been viewed more and more sceptically and David Irving now self-publishes.
Irving's main works are listed below. In all he has published nearly30 titles.

The Destruction of Dresden (1963)
The Mare's Nest (1964)
The Virus House (1967)
The Destruction of Convoy PQ17 (1967)
Accident - The Death of General Sikorski (1967)
Breach of Security (1968)
The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe (1973), a biography of Erhard Milch
Hitler's War (1977), Hitler in wartime
The Trail of the Fox (1977), a biography of Erwin Rommel
The War Path (1978)
The War Between the Generals (1981)
Uprising! (1981)
The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor (1983)
The German Atomic Bomb: The History of Nuclear Research in Nazi Germany (1983)
War Between the Generals (1986)
Churchill's War (1987), Churchill in wartime
Destruction of Convoy PQ-17 (1968), reprint (1989)
G”ring (1989), biography of Hermann G”ring
Goebbels - Mastermind of the "Third Reich" (1996)
Hitler's War (1991), revised edition, incorporating The War Path
Nuremberg: The Last Battle (1996)
Churchill's War Volume II: Triumph in Adversity (1997)
Rommel: The Trail of the Fox, Wordsworth Military Library; Limited edition (1999)
Hitler's War and the War Path (2002)

Internet Information
The free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has a detailed entry dealing with David Irving. This can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

The site updates regularly and the information about Irving includes his trial in Vienna and subsequent imprisonment.
Some of those whose comments on the entry are included on the site have suggested the entry is biased against Irving, mainly because it refers to him as a Holocaust
denier, a title that Irving himself rejects. Wikipedia's justification for its use of the term in regard to Irving is the 2000 British High Court ruling in the suit Irving brought against American historian Deborah Lipstadt. The judge found that on the balance of the evidence Irving was a Holocaust denier.

The BBC's Internet site has a section written by Deborah Lipstadt explaining Holocaust denial. This can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/deniers_01.shtml

Political Research Associates (PRA) is a group founded in 1981 which 'works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to human rights by oppressive and authoritarian movements and trends in the United States'. The group's Internet publication is titled PublicEye.
PublicEye has published a detailed analysis by Lin Collette of the nature of historical revisionism in relation to Holocaust history titled 'Encountering Holocaust Denial'. Collette gives clear explanations of the distinction between revisionists (of different sorts) and Holocaust deniers. She also suggests the motivations of the different groups and gives contemporary examples of organisations and individuals who fit into the different camps. Her analysis includes a brief discussion of David Irving.
This is an excellent source for those seeking a clear and impartial overview of the broader issue.
Collette concludes with a discussion of how best to deal with Holocaust deniers. At this point she presents an opinion. She appears to favour public debate and education over prohibition.
The analysis can be found at http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n3/holodeni.html

The Nizkor Project is an Internet site dedicated to the memory of 'the 12 million Holocaust victims'. It is a site specifically concerned to counter the claims made by certain revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers. It has a section that deals specifically with David Irving, whom it treats critically.
The index to the David Irving section of the site can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/index.html
The Nizkor Project's overall index can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/
The project directly links 'holocaust revisionism' with making 'National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again'.

On February 23, 2006, American Thinker has published an opinion piece by JR Dunn, the former editor of the International Military Encyclopedia, titled, 'David Irving jailed in Austria for Holocaust Denial'. The piece is a detailed criticism of Irving and ultimately a justification of the sentence he received. It can be found at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5275

On February 23, 2006, The Israel Resource Review published an opinion piece by Dr Alex Grobman titled 'In the Case Against David Irving, Has Justice Been Served?' Dr Grobman argued that the sentence David Irving received was appropriate.
The text of this comment can be found http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Feb-23-06.htm

David Irving's Internet site 'Focal Point' can be found at http://www.fpp.co.uk/
The site includes a brief reference to his imprisonment in Austria accessed through the link 'Today'.
Its 'Previous months' material' takes the reader to news commentaries of Irving's. The most recent that can be accessed is dated 'September 2005)
Some sections of the site are difficult to navigate and not all the links are current.

On March 16, 2006, Newsweek International Edition published an opinion piece by American historian Deborah Lipstadt, titled, 'Opinion: Silence Hate with Truth'. In this she argues that views such as Irving's are not best countered by legal prohibition.
The opinion piece can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11569497/site/newsweek/

On February 22, 2006, Canadian Free Press published an opinion piece by Beryl Wajsman, of the Institute for Public Affairs for Montreal. The piece is titled 'The David Irving Prosecution' and is a detailed consideration of the dangers inherent in laws that try to control thought.
The article can be found at http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/wajsman022206.htm

Arguments opposing the imprisonment of David Irving
1. Distortions of the truth should be exposed, not suppressed
It has been argued that the best way to counter distortions of the truth is to discredit them with fact and reasonable argument, rather than simply to ban them.
Deborah Lipstadt, an American historian whom David Irving tried, unsuccessfully, to sue in 1998 for challenging his views as racist and inaccurate, has written, 'I countered Irving's hate speech-for that is what it is-with honesty. In court we proved that every one of his claims was bunk. The judge's overwhelming ruling in my favour was devastating for all Holocaust deniers, as their core arguments collapsed under the light of day.
Ironically, had there been an English law against Holocaust denial, we might never have had the chance to demonstrate that denial is just a web of lies. My defeat of Irving was sweet because it was based on reason.
Instead of looking to the law, let those with a fidelity to historical accuracy fight these liars and haters using facts and genuine research as their weapons. Greater openness, not less, may sometimes cause pain. But in the end societies will be stronger for it.'
Lothar Hobelt, an associate professor of history at the University of Vienna, believes Austria's law against holocaust denial is counterproductive. 'This is a silly law by silly people for silly people,' he has said. 'In fact, having a law that says you mustn't question a particular historical instance, if anything, creates doubt about it, because if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument.'
Daniel Finkelstein, the son of a Holocaust survivir who was a friend and contemporary of Anne Frank has stated, 'I don't think you fight lies with criminal law. I believe you fight lies with truth ... however warped and horrible [Irving's] opinion is ... I believe that by allowing free exchange, by allowing anyone to assert anything, the truth will triumph, provided its friends are vigilant and relentless.'

2. Imprisoning Irving makes him a martyr and effectively promotes his views
It has been claimed that imprisoning David Irving is counterproductive as it will only make him a hero or a martyr in the eyes of those already attracted to his views. It has further been claimed that the imprisonment will draw attention to his discredited views and give them a spurious credibility.
These points have been made by Neil Mitchell in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on February 23 2006. Mitchell has argued, 'Irving has been in jail only a matter of days and already it is obvious it was a mistake to lock him up. He is becoming a martyr, and the idiots who support him are finding new strength. Newspapers, television and radio have been chattering since an Austrian court decided to jail Irving for three years.
Most media dismiss him for what he is, but they need to report his crime, so they report his views, or what he claims used to be his views. That means his discredited and ridiculous contention that the Holocaust was some type of invention supported by massive conspiracy has been repeated at length and in places where it will be noticed and read. That means he will find new followers because there are still plenty of anti-Semites, walking almost upright, willing to embrace any vile theory to support their own insecurities.'
A similar view was put by Matthew Rojanski writing for The International Herald Tribune who expresses concern that Irving's imprisonment will convert him into a martyr to the cause of free speech and gain supporters for his cause they it would otherwise not have.
Matthew Rojanski has written, 'Europe's suppression of free speech is guaranteed to spawn and incubate precisely the kind of bigotry and sectarian violence it is intended to prevent. Hounded for the unthinkable crime of publishing false history, David Irving appears almost heroic as he stands up to censorship, fines and imprisonment, making him a kind of martyr for neo-fascist groups.'

3. Freedom of expression is fundamental to any democracy
Some opponents of David Irving's imprionment have condemned the Prohibition Act as an attack on free speech and thus on democracy. According to those who hold this view, free speech is a necessary precondition of democracy and to undermine freedom of speech is to threaten the democractic state.
American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin has argued that free speech was not just a special emblem of Western culture that could be "qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it." Dworkin has instead that freedom of speech is a condition of legitimate government.
Dworkin has argued, 'Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be ... If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect.'
Put more simply this means if we restrict freedom of debate then we cannot expect those people [such as Irving and his followers] who have had their views suppressed to abide by whatever laws our society frames. This means that a democracy has to be ready to listen to all points of view, including those that a majority of its citizens find unacceptable.

4. Irving's views are not intended to promote violence
David Irving is a writer and a public speaker who has several times on the publicly indicated that he neither approves of nor seeks to promote violence. He has also denied association with right-wing or neo-Nazi groups. In an interview given in 1991, Irving stated, 'I don't think I encourage any kind of violence, though I do try to encourage people to think for themselves.' He has also claimed that photographs appearing to show him addressing crowds of neo-Nazis were effectively stage managed by the media.
David Irving's defenders argue that the man is in no position to promote violence or to implement policies which will result in violence.
Cindy Sheehan writing in Press Action has stated, 'Irving, Zundel and others who face criminal charges of "denying the Holocaust" have not committed violence against anybody. They have not given orders to soldiers to invade and occupy another country. They have not given orders to police or soldiers to arrest and imprison individuals without charges. They have not given approval to secret police, soldiers or prison guards to torture individuals
Irving, Zundel and others have expressed their opinions about one of the most despicable periods in our world's history. These expressions might anger people. But these people are not in positions of power today that would give them the means to implement policies that mimic the conduct of the Nazis.'

5. Irving's views have already been comprehensively discredited
It has been claimed that Irving's views have been so discredited that he no longer has the capacity to influence popular opinion and so imprisoning him is not necessary to reduce the influence of his views.
It has been suggested that Irving's popular and academic standing was irrevocably damaged by the result of the libel action he brought against American academic Deborah Lipstadt. Justice Grey stated in his ruling, 'I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence....In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency....Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a "spin" on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions.'
The purport of Justice Grey's remarks was that Irving's work was fraudulent as he distorted evidence to support his own prejudices.
Even prior to losing the libel suit, David Irving had had difficulty with publishers. In 1991, Macmillan UK Ltd stopped accepting his new works and allowed already published books to lapse out of print. In 1996, St. Martin's Press, a New York publishing house, cancelled its plan to publish Irving's biography of Joseph Goebbels calling the work "effectively anti- Semitic." Irving currently self-publishes through his London-based Focal Point Publications.

6. Irving no longer holds the views for which he has been imprisoned
Irving's defence counsel argued it was not appropriate to punish Irving for views he no longer held. Irving's lawyer, , has stated, 'Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, "I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man ... He said, "I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it".'
During the trial Irving told the court he had changed his opinion and claimed judges had no right to try him for views he held 16 years ago - and had since revoked.
Addressing the court in German, David Irving claimed he had changed his mind over the Nazi extermination of Jews in 1991 after discovering the personal papers of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. He testified, 'My opinions was based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.'

7. Austrian laws against Holocaust denial are no longer required
It has been claimed that Austria's laws against Holocaust denial are outmoded. According to this view, though they may once have served a valid purpose, they do so no longer. This view has been put by expatriate Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, who has argued, 'In the aftermath of World War II, when the Austrian republic was struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a democracy and a member of the European Union. Despite the occasional resurgence of anti-immigrant and even racist views - an occurrence that is, lamentably, not limited to countries with a fascist past - there is no longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria.'
A similar claim has been made by Stephen Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies Washington, who has stated, '... to utter these historical falsehoods in a ... free society, where alternative truthful accounts of the subject are freely available, where articulate exponents of the truth abound and where generalised hatred of Jews is no longer prevalent or publicly accepted, is to undertake no direct incitement of evildoing.
This is especially true of Austria, where there are virtually no Jews left to be the targets of rage.'

Arguments supporting the imprisonment of David Irving
1. Austria's laws against Holocaust denial are meant to discourage Nazism
It has been suggested that were Austria to overturn its law criminalising holocaust denial, this could be taken as a signal that it had become more supportive of National Socialist or neo-Nazi groups within its society.
The current law is typically seen as an indication of Austria's on-going opposition to Nazism, were that law to be removed, there are those who fear that this could be misconstrued as encouragement for their activities by members of neo-Nazi groups.
Professor Theo Ohlinger, an expert in constitutional law at Vienna University, has argued that the law is a sensitive issue. He has stated, 'It is so clear that the Holocaust existed that everybody who denies it is considered a fool. But abolishing this law could signal that Austria may not be really active in fighting against any National Socialist activities, and that is a problem.'
In 1945 Austria adopted the Prohibition Act, the primary purpose of which was to prohibit any political or social action which might promote the resurgence of Nazism in Austria. In 1947 Austria amended the law to prohibit the 'public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes.' In 1992 the Act was amended specifically to make Holocaust denial illegal. The penalties for such conduct range from one to ten years imprisonment. Austria's Banning Law (as it is also known) is often applied - charges were brought against 724 people in 2004 - but rarely leads to a jail term. It has been argued that Irving represents a special case of a high profile, persistent offender.
Austrian researcher Heribert Schiedel has claimed, 'Austria is where the Nazis were in power. Democracy is not so deeply based here. That is why this law is important.'

2. David Irving was aware that he faced arrest, trial and possible imprisonment if he returned to Austria
It has been claimed that David Irving should have been well aware of the likelihood of arrest, trial and imprisonment he faced when he returned to Austria. Charges had been brought against him for Holocaust denial when he escaped Austria in 1989, after having giving two lectures containing material illegal under Austrian law.
It has further been suggested that any claims David Irving now makes that his arrest, trial and jail term were in any way unexpected are disingenuous.
These points have been made in an Age editorial published on February 22, 2006. The editorial states, '[Irving] was said to be "very shocked" at the sentence. Why he should have been so distressed is a mystery. Warrants have been out for his arrest since his 1989 visit when he denied that the genocide took place. Austria introduced a law in 1947 banning such actions. One would have thought he would have known that.'
According to this line of argument David Irving has only himself to blame for his current term of imprisonment. Not only did he commit the original offences which have attracted this prison term, knowing that his actions were in violation of Austrlian law, in late 2005 he returned to Austria knowing he faced probable arrest and with the apparent intention of recommitting the original offence.

3. Irving has admitted the charges against him
David Irving has admitted to the crimes with which he was charged and for which he has now been imprisoned. Mr Irving instructed his defence lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, that he wished to plead guilty to three instance of behaviour outlawed under the Prohibition Act.
On a lecture tour of Austria in 1989, Mr Irving declared Auschwitz to be as much a legend as the Turin Shroud. The authenticity of the Holocaust, he then claimed, could not be established by documents, but only by the testimonies of survivors who were 'psychiatric cases'.
The fate of the six million Jews, he further claimed, was clear. 'Seventy-four thousand died of natural causes in the work camps and the rest were hidden in reception camps after the war and later taken to Palestine, where they live today under new identities.
On the fringes of the two meetings in Vienna and Leoben, he gave an interview with a journalist, Christa Zoechling, in which he stated, 'I stand by what I said, there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz.'

4. Views such as Irving's are offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust, their friends and family
One argument put forward as to why claims such as those made by David Irving should be illegal is that they are extremely offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust, their friends and family. In this way utterances such as David Irving's are similar to racist abuse, which is also illegal in many jurisdictions, in part because of the offence it gives to those who are the targets of it.
Among the offensive utterances David Irving has made is the following, 'I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?
I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.
Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.'
Speaking of more moderate views than those just cited, Lin Collette, a doctoral candidate in Religious Studies at the Union Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio, has written, 'What is troubling to all of those who have suffered through the Holocaust, but particularly to Jews, who were the prime targets, is the "careless or calculated rewriting of history" that "prevents many of them from laying their own ghosts to rest." [What is offensive is] the tendency of history to blur the reality of their suffering - an inclination that is also visible in revisionist histories that have held the Jews partly to blame for their own slaughter.'
There are still Holocaust survivors in Austria, where Jews number 20,000 out of a population of 8 million. Hans Rauscher, a columnist with Vienna's 'Standard' newspaper, has argued 'To allow Irving to speak would cause them [Austria's Holocaust survivors] great pain.'

5. Views such as Irving's are likely to foster violence and racial hatred
In many of the countries where it is illegal to disseminate views such as those espoused by David Irving, this is because those views are believed to be likely to promote racial hatred.
In Germany, in May 1995, David Irving was indicted with the following charge 'Incitement to race hatred, Libel, and Defamation of the memory of the dead'.
It has been argued that in some countries, such as Germany and Austria, that have a history of active and wide-spread involvement with Nazism and where neo-Nazism or support for National Socialism remains a problem, incitement to racial hatred is an immediate threat to public safety.
This point has been made by J.R. Dun, a former long-term editor of the International Military Encyclopedia, in an opinion piece published in 'The American Thinker' on February 23rd, 2006.
Dunn stated, 'The Austrians think differently [about the primacy of freedom of speech] - they have no choice. Austria was seriously implicated in the Endlosung ['final solution'] ... and remains today the most anti-Semitic nation in Western Europe. A deeply-rooted fascist movement exists in the country (one of its offshoots actually gained power in 2000). As is also the case in Germany, anti-extremist laws are a necessary means of social prophylaxis.'
This position has been summed up by an editorial printed in New Mexico Indymedia which claimed, 'Irving ... wasn't sentenced for his "opinions", but for disseminating hate and incitement. Countries where past excessive permissiveness spawned the worst genocidal horrors are right to be ultra-wary of repeat leniency for inflammatory rhetoric. In today's intemperate climate we can only applaud the resolve demonstrated by the Viennese court.'

6. Other nations with comparable concerns have laws similar to Austria's
There are a further ten nations which have laws similar to Austria's, making it an offence to deny the Holocaust. In addition to Austria, it is illegal to make such claims in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Part of the reason for this is the current social and political context of these countries and their past experience of Nazism and anti-Semitism. Though he does not support David Irving's imprisonment, Stephen Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, has stressed the importance of context in relation to laws that restrict freedom of speech.
Morris has stated, 'Spreading falsehoods in a multiracial society - falsehoods such as that some minority groups cause disease or are killing innocents - is good grounds for incarceration. Multiethnic societies such as India and Indonesia are faced with such problems every day. In the case of Holocaust denial, using it to encourage hatred of Jews in a society where Jews live, or near where Jews live, should be considered criminal ... context is everything.'

7. Irving's supposed change of views has been dismissed as 'lip-service'
The Austrian judge who presided over the recent trial of David Irving, Peter Liebetreu, was not convinced by Irving's claims that he no longer held the views for which he was being tried. The judge told the court, 'We did not consider the defendant to have genuinely changed his mind. The regret he showed was considered to be mere lip service to the law.'
The prosecutor, Michael Klackl, has stated there was evidence that Irving still held opinions he was now disclaiming as recently as 2004. Citing examples of statements Irving made in interviews after 1991, Klackl argued, 'He's continued to deny the fact that the Holocaust was genocide orchestrated from the highest ranks of the Nazi state.'
Irving's post trial comments also suggest he has not genuinely changed his position. He described the trial as 'a farce' and told a television interviewer, 'Believe me I didn't want to plead guilty but my lawyer said "Mr Irving you have no choice. The law is as it says and you've crossed the line." It's a stupid law. It's just as though if a country were to introduce a law saying that you're not allowed to wear a brown tie when you come to Austria and some witless Englishman, namely I, comes to Austria wearing a brown tie then you've broken the law.'

Further implications
This is not a simple issue. On the face of it the argument that freedom of speech must be respected is compelling, however, as numerous commentators have noted, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute.
One of the fundamental points at issue is the extent to which opinions such as Irving's pose a real risk to public safety. It has been claimed that the potential resurgence of neo-Nazi views in various parts of Europe is sufficient justification for the imprisonment of those whose public comments would appear to promote Nazism.
However, it is difficult to see imprisonment as an effective means of countering the views presented by David Irving. It is possible that his imprisonment will only feed the sense of injustice that is a feature of the worldview of many of his supporters. Some of the Internet sites supporting Irving include commentators who have argued that the very fact of Irving's imprisonment demonstrates the truth of his claims. They state that if Irving's claims could have been counter by fact and argument then it would not have been necessary to imprison him.
Obviously the argument is more complex than simply overcome error with truth. Emotions run high both among those who support Irving and those who oppose him and neither rationality nor idealism is a necessary feature of the positions they adopt.
What does seem likely, however, is that when dealing with a potentially violent group of probable bigots, appearing to have railroaded someone they see as their spokesperson is probably unwise.
It is hard not to see Irving's imprisonment as primarily the Austrian authorities conducting a show trial designed to demonstrate their anti-Nazi credentials. Irving had returned to Austria twice between 1989 when he broke the Prohibition Act and November of 2006 when he was finally arrested for those previous actions. The tightening of the Prohibition Act to specifically include Holocaust denial had occurred as recently as 1992, three years after the offences for which Irving was ultimately tried. The vast majority of those who are charged under this law are not imprisoned. It would appear that Irving was made an example of because of his high profile. Such a strategy may ultimately be counter productive.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this outline
The Age
AGE, November 19, page 16, news item by A Hall, `Holocaust denier Irving under lock and key in Austria'.
AGE, February 22, page 20, editorial, `David Irving's speech defects'.
AGE, February 22, page 15, news items (photos of Irving, Michele Renouf, chronology of events since 1963), `Controversial Nazi apologist backs down, but still jailed for three years / Socialite's show of support causes stir'.
AGE, February 21, page 7, news item (ref to trial and sentence), `Nazi apologist faces jail for "Holocaust myth" claim'.
AGE, March 3, page 15, analysis (photo) by J Button, `Truth and lies'.

The Australian
AUST, January 24, page 14, comment by Brendan O'Neill, `Stop the massacre: one Holocaust is enough'.
AUST, February 22, page 14, comment by Stephen Morris, `Justice demands a sense of proportion'.
AUST, February 22, page 15, editorial, `No denying reality'.
AUST, February 22, page 9, news items (photos), `Irving jailed over Holocaust denials / Twin casts doubt on brother's backflip'.
AUST, February 21, page 10, news item, `Fears of clashes as Irving faces trial'.
AUST, February 27, page 16, comment by Peter Singer, `Irving verdict ridicules freedom'.

The Herald-Sun
H/SUN, February 23, page 21, comment by Neil Mitchell, `Ratbag now martyr'.
H/SUN, February 22, page 9, news item by M Dunn, `Holocaust outrage'.
H/SUN, February 28, page 22, comment by R Riley, `Too big for his boots' (relates to and mentions topic).
H/SUN, February 25, page 24, analysis (photos of Irving and Australian Lady Michele Renouf) by I McPhedran, `The lady and her champ in the wars'.
Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google