Austria Imposes 3-Year Sentence on Notorious Holocaust Denier
Irving case prompts Austria law debate
VIENNA, Feb. 20 (AP) - The British historian David Irving on Monday pleaded guilty to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison. He conceded that he was wrong when he said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camp.
It takes a special sort of idiot to deny the validity and reality of the Holocaust. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, these folks continue to deny the result of Hitler’s reign of terror. Not to be crude, but six million dead Jews can’t be wrong, eh? It’s not as if these folks just decided en masse to go on a walkabout and never returned. Those who insist that the Holocaust is a Jewish invention deserve their very own special place in Hell- after being force-marched through Auschwitz.
Having said that, though, I am concerned about the message being sent by sending these trolls to jail simply for spreading their lies and propaganda. No reasonable person would take what holocaust deniers have to say at face value, so why should their expression of these views be a crime? Ignorant, hateful, and disrespectful, certainly…but criminal? Ignorance and insensitivity may be offensive to some, but does the expression of such ignorance make you a criminal? Or merely a fool?
Mr. Irving appeared shocked as the sentence was read. Moments later, an elderly man who identified himself as a family friend called out, “Stay strong, David! Stay strong!” The man was escorted from the courtroom.
Mr. Irving, 67, has been in custody since Nov. 11, when he was arrested in the southern province of Styria on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis’ annihilation of six million Jews. He has contended that most of those who died at camps like Auschwitz were not executed, but instead succumbed to diseases like typhus.
He was denied bail by a Vienna court, which said there was a risk he would flee the country. He was convicted under a 1992 law, which applies to “whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.”
Irving was convicted under a law passed in 1992 for speeches he gave in 1989? I realize that Austria, given it’s experience during the Nazi era, is significanlty more sensitive about the Holocaust than most countries, but enforcing a law retroactively seems rather indefensible.
I’m not about to defend Irving’s speeches or his beliefs, but free speech and expression is part and parcel of a free society. When a society bans the expression of an objectionable and/or offensive point of view, it begins to travel down a slippery slope. If denying the Holocaust can be made a criminal offense, how long before voicing opposition to the government is made illegal? Indeed, where do you draw the line? As soon as one form of expression is criminalized, it may not be long before additional forms may be made illegal.
A few Austrians, such as Lothar Hobelt, an associate professor of history at the University of Vienna, believe it should never have been set up at all.
“This is a silly law by silly people for silly people,” he 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.”
Yes, there is certainly no defending Irving’s views, but criminalizing the expression of them is a dangerous way to silence someone…particularly when the law was passed three years AFTER Irving gave his speeches. Is this really the best way for Austria to demonstrate it’s commitment to a free and open society? After all, free speech is very often offensive speech…and they don’t come much more offensive than David Irving.
