Posted on 02/20/2006 12:58:55 PM PST by aculeus
British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.
He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital.
Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal."
An unidentified onlooker told him: "Stay strong!".
Irving's lawyer said he considered the verdict "a little too stringent".
"I would say it's a bit of a message trial," said Elmar Kresbach.
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "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.
But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.
"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.
Fears that the court case would provoke right-wing demonstrations and counter-protests did not materialise, the BBC's Ben Brown at the court in Vienna said.
Irving arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Irving was arrested in Austria in November, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.
He was stopped by police on a motorway in southern Austria, where he was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He has been held in custody since then.
'I've changed'
During the one-day trial, he was questioned by the prosecutor and chief judge, and answered questions in fluent German.
He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.
"I said that then 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," Irving told the court.
"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."
In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.
COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL Austria Belgium Czech Republic France Germany Israel Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Switzerland
The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".
On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.
"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."
Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice."
He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.
"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2006/02/20 20:19:07 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Now if only we could jail a certain Iranian leader for saying the same thing.
Hmmm kind of mixed feelings. Guy is scum but being sent to jail cause he is an idiot? Litte over reaching? What are the powers that be NEXT going to decide is "hate speech"? being critical of the Govt.?
Hard for Europe to stand-up to the Muslims who are calling for the Allah cartoonists to be jailed when they are locking people up for expressing an idea. When the Muslims complain of double standards, I hate to say it, but they would seem to have a point.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2049852,00.html
The man sounds creepy, but there is something profoundly disturbing about being extradited from your home country and tried for an offense that was committed in your home country, that is not illegal there.
Putting people in jail for what they say or think...
it ain't right.
> He's been a crank for a long time.
So are these guys...
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Should we lock them up, too?
Crank or not, he'll get lots of support from people who detest his views. Hitchens, for example, will be outraged.
Historian?
Right winger?
So, is Farakan a right winger too?
This hateful little man, David Irving, cannot possibly be deemed a historian, when facts are cast aside and substituted for his own terribly hateful and twisted opinion.
And yet, he found a willing publisher for his unconscionable writings. HURL.
Being a crank might sometimes call for institutionalization [and even that would have an extremely emetic soviet taste to it], but jail time?
I am really not familiar with this fellow, but this is a bit weird.
A British man gave a speech in Austria, and is going to jail for violating a reactionary law more than 15 years ago?
Gosh would it still have been a crime if he gave the speech in his own country?
Wow! Just imagine if he denied that the earth was round.
Or he believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. The EU is nothing but tyranny.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Jailing someone for his thoughts is an abomination. What jerks. This greases the skids for all manner of Orwellian laws.
LOL!! Good point!
Though, something wrong with imprisoning a man for expressing a opinion, even if he is a Nazi.
"This hateful little man, David Irving, cannot possibly be deemed a historian, when facts are cast aside and substituted for his own terribly hateful and twisted opinion."
But, twisted though he may be, he is being jailed for an opinion he expressed more than 15 years ago, and has since recanted. Which is more dangerous, the ravings of a crank or state authority to detain and imprison anyone with whom the state takes issue? The state has far more coercive power and is therefore a far greater danger. This is wrong.
Does this disqualify him for the cartoon contest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.