tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post114078971296910317..comments2024-01-29T08:47:44.310+00:00Comments on Eaten by missionaries: David Irving - not just an 'idiot' but an evil manIain Sharpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07249331216466329232noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post-1140801734146525942006-02-24T17:22:00.000+00:002006-02-24T17:22:00.000+00:00Idiot doesn't mean thick or laughable. It's just a...Idiot doesn't mean thick or laughable. It's just an expression of contempt which, I'm sure you'd agree, Mr Irving warrants.<BR/><BR/>Few if any real historians would agree to debate Irving since they would be aware that doing so would add to his credibility.<BR/><BR/>Yes, but they should. The problem with 'depriving people of the oxygen of publicity' is then it looks like a media conspiracy to silence an 'eminent gentleman' [sic]. <BR/><BR/>The best way of dealing with him is getting some real historians on a platform with him and, as Alex says, encouraging the media to greet him with the contempt he deserves. Unfortunately, we live in an age of cultural relativism which doesn't help. <BR/><BR/>Iran is a red-herring - it's not exactly the most reputable platform in the world...Femme de Resistancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11730739589910153745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post-1140801644487818602006-02-24T17:20:00.000+00:002006-02-24T17:20:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Femme de Resistancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11730739589910153745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post-1140800440929425052006-02-24T17:00:00.000+00:002006-02-24T17:00:00.000+00:00I generally go with your instincts on free speech,...I generally go with your instincts on free speech, but I just can't here. He <I>is </I>an evil man, but how do you quantify that into law? I agree that he shouldn't be treated as just a figure of fun, or described as an 'historian'; I'd prefer 'propagandist'. Yet I recoil from where laws that prevent argument, however heinous, unless they're direct incitement can take us. Of course he's useful to the far right, but law's got to be on the basis of proven lines, not how nasty your friends are. I see Holocaust denial as similar to an act 'preparatory to terrorism'; something too easily misused and able to be used as justification for laws that each of us would be horrified by in precisely the sort of countries you're saying Irving has become a hero in. Do you think his jailing will have done the remotest smidgeon to counter them? Do you really think they won't be portraying him as a martyr and the West as hypocrites? <BR/><BR/>How instead to deal with it? I don't have an easy, glib answer like shutting people up, and while helping bolster a climate of hate is heinous, where does it stop? The state's role might be in education, so the Holocaust can be repeatedly laid bare by the power of the state, so the evidence is given why such people as Irving are liars with their own agenda. People like us should speak out and harass news programmes not to call him an historian but to expose him for what he is. But when Liberals call for the state to put people in the slammer because a free press does a crap job or historians lack the moral fibre to make the argument, how do you complain when they lock people up for views that are heinous-but-not-quite-so-heinous, and who does the judging? I read the <I>New Statesman </I>article. His views are disgusting, and the article communicated that well. But there's got to be a firmer basis for law. Lies have to be met with facts, not prison sentences that those taken in by them will take as confirmation of their conspiracy theories.<BR/><BR/>The Holocaust will always be a live issue when thugs, propagadists or tabloids are still attacking Jews, or gypsies, or gays. Violence and the threat of violence has to be met with the full pressure of the law, and I've had arguments within the Lib Dems when I put policies to Conference toughening our stance on hate crime. The way to take on the climate that makes such violence possible, though, can't be such nebulous laws that they're directly equivalent to state-sponsored suppression of disagreement elsewhere. It gives oppressors excuses and instead of knocking down fascists it lets them pretend to be victims.Alex Wilcockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03364653159038708678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post-1140796797231139322006-02-24T15:59:00.000+00:002006-02-24T15:59:00.000+00:00But in practice this is not what happens. Few if a...But in practice this is not what happens. Few if any real historians would agree to debate Irving since they would be aware that doing so would add to his credibility.<BR/><BR/>He would therefore end up being interviewed by broadcasters who couldn't hope to match his knowledge of the subject matter and he would run rings round them.<BR/><BR/>This is essentially what happened after the Lipstadt trial where Irving all but pretended the verdict hadn't happened and revelled in the publicity.<BR/><BR/>If only the media had the discipline not to give Irving the oxygen of publicity...<BR/><BR/>Where do you think Irving would rather be - in an Austrian prison or touring the TV studios prior to packing his bags for the conference in Iran where he would get more publicity and very little tough questioning?Iain Sharpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249331216466329232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20274437.post-1140794846614408912006-02-24T15:27:00.000+00:002006-02-24T15:27:00.000+00:00> In the light of the furore over Jorg Haider's Fr...> In the light of the furore over Jorg Haider's Freedom party, Austria would have been roundly criticised if it had failed to prosecute, while Irving would have been free to tour the broadcasting studios crowing at his victory.<BR/><BR/>Where he would have been taken to bits by journalists and real historians.Paul Leakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006299773244556618noreply@blogger.com