David Irving changes his mind...

...and not before time. From today's "New York Times":

Austria Imposes 3-Year Sentence on Notorious Holocaust Denier
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
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.

Mr. Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived in court carrying a copy of one of his books, "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court before his sentencing, at which he faced up to 10 years in prison.

"In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis," testified Mr. Irving, who has written nearly 30 books.

He also expressed sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."

Mr. Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, immediately announced that he would appeal the sentence.

"I consider the verdict a little too stringent," he said. "I would say it's a bit of a message trial."

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."

Mr. Irving's trial came during a period of intense debate in Europe over freedom of expression, after European newspapers printed caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that set off deadly protests worldwide.

 

It's amazing how the threat of punishment makes people change their mind. Mr Irving must be an extremely upleasant man. I wouldn't like to get a glimpse of the inside of his mind.

 

I think that Irving is an extremely unpleasant man whose views have been inspirational in the past to extreme right wing groups. I have no sympathy for him.

I also don't think that he's 'changed his mind' and I'm told that his web site is still unpleasant and anti-semitic.

However, as a Jew myself, I think it's unfortunate that Irving's been imprisoned for his views. Austria, like much of Europe that was occupied by the Nazis, has strict laws against holocaust denial and we can understand that. Irving has broken the law in Austria.

However, many people will be asking why it's ok for the West to allow free speech when it comes to publishing cartoons that Muslims find offensive but not allow free speech when it might offend the Jews. I think it's a good point.

As I said, I feel it's unfortunate that Irving has been imprisoned. Many Jewish people feel the same way.

Regards
Steve

 

I think the headline should read "David Irving has his mind changed ..."

 

I heard him interviewed as he waited for sentence and he was trying to be clever in his replies which appeared to show he was admitting he was wrong but allowed for much loose interpretation.
Anyway his brief reckons he'll only do 1 year max.

 

My views pretty much echo those of Steve on this. I find Irving's views distasteful and misguided at best, and if you go back far enough I'd even say they were hateful (he has toned down his views a lot since his original comments).

But I find the idea that one can go to prison for what is essentially a thought crime to be wrong as well - free speech should be allowed to prevail.

Far better to see Irving dismissed as a nutter and have his work ripped to shreds amongst his peers, than to give the guy the publicity afforded to him and his work by this trial, which leaves him as something of a martyr to the far right who'll no doubt sieze upon his imprisonment as proof of pro-Jewish bias , as Steve says pointing out the discrepancy between what happens to those who offend Muslims versus those who Jews.

My 2p

 

I now read that the Austrian prosecutor is appealing to have the sentence lengthened, this I presume is so Irvine gets even more publicity.

 

Does anyone else see a parallel with the British governments wish to make it an offense to 'encourage' terrorism?

 

The moon landings never happened.

President Bush wears ladies' underwear.

Millions of jews did not die in gas chambers during the second world war.

Those three statements can be argued to be equally (un)true. Only one of them is an imprisonable offence. The implications for free speech are disturbing.

On the other hand, Mr Irving is a thoroughly discredited and apparently unpleasant piece of work. For some of what he has done, and particularly for having given "intellectual" encouragement to some seriously unpleasant elements, the sentence is deserved.

Where is the line drawn? Without law and order mankind has no free will (as paradoxical as that may seem).

 

Clearly untrue: