Historian gets 3 years in prison for Holocaust denial

[VetLegion]

Wow, an impressive list of countries. I really wasn't aware it was that widespread.

[mitch]

Horrible decision by the court. Hey atleast DanS had a comment that made sense though.

[aneeshm]

Free speech .

[Dis]

my first impression on seeing this title (on drudge) was he's not a very good historian.

but to Austria.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS


Which changes when he goes to jail... how?

He gets rightly punished for inciting racial hatred and hate crime.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Last time I checked, being a racist, sexist, or other forms of bigot is not a crime.

Nah, too easy.

[DaShi]

Was it proved that his words were a deliberate attempt to incite hate and crime other than a profession of a belief (or ignorance, in this case)? From the article it just says that he was convicted solely for denying the Holocaust.

[Dinner]

Isn't there a statute of limitations? 17 years sounds like an aweful long time to wait to bring charges.

[techumseh]

Austria has it's own denial. The part of it's history when it was an integral part of the Third Reich (1938-45) is missing. It's not mentioned in polite society, or in many books. The Austrians conveniently consider themselves to have been occupied by Germany, rather than enthusiastic participants in the Anchluss and the war that followed.

So, while I don't mind legal penalties for holocaust deniers, Austria has a hypocracy problem.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by VetLegion


It's illegal to deny the holocaust in other countries too?

I believe it is in France though if it is not then this wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken. I do know that France has strict laws against Nazism and Nazi symbols. They've even gone so far as to force game companies and historians to not use the historically accurate uniforms and flags in their period pieces.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by techumseh
Austria has it's own denial. The part of it's history when it was an integral part of the Third Reich (1938-45) is missing. It's not mentioned in polite society, or in many books. The Austrians conveniently consider themselves to have been occupied by Germany, rather than enthusiastic participants in the Anchluss and the war that followed.

So, while I don't mind legal penalties for holocaust deniers, Austria has a hypocracy problem.

While this is undoubtedly true, especially for the older generation, I hasten to add that it does seem to be changing. There is certainly a scholarly debate in Austrian circles as to the language of WWII era (and post-war) treaties regarding Austria's internationally assigned complicity, as well as what moral responsibility they might have for what their people did during the war years. It should be noted that "Anschluss" doesn't mean "occupation," but "connection" or "union," and my impression is that the younger generations at least are starting to understand the Anschluss more in terms of its actual definition than a simple occupation and annexation of the country.

[BeBMan]

Austrians caused all world wars

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by BeBro
Austrians caused all world wars

Whan Austrians attack Iran this is it... run for the hills

btw. the decision

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DaShi
Was it proved that his words were a deliberate attempt to incite hate and crime other than a profession of a belief (or ignorance, in this case)? From the article it just says that he was convicted solely for denying the Holocaust.

Irving is a tragic case. He was a respected historian - he wrote a book called Hitler's War which pieced together OKH and OKW records to give an account of the war which afaik is still considered authoritative. He was very critical of Hitler's conduct of the war in that book.

But somehow he also managed to convince himself along the way that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, then he went further and denied it. Then he started associating with neo nazi groups and speaking at their rallies, in Germany and other places.

He was challenged by other historians and lost a famous defamation case in the UK. This bankrupted him. Now his remarks have cost him jail time. I think he is mad. He always denied the consequences of his actions which for example in Germany were to encourage attacks on immigrants. Can you prove the link? No, but this is precisely why hate speech is banned. So people can't say things which incite others and then stand back as Irving did.

[binTravkin]

But Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust disagreed. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

Intellectual debate and scientific research, on whatever topic that is, should never be a subject to any rulings.
If we make such rulings, what safety is there that the things we hold as 'truth' are really true?

Im not a holocaust denier myself, but I think it was/is possible to fake history and to detect such fakes, there must be this exactly same 'intellectual debate', even if it's just for the sake of proving the same again and again.