David Irving to speak in UCC!

by ? Mon Feb 25, 2008 16:57

Why is David Irving the 'World's Most famous holocuast denier?'

Is it because he has made himself so- or is it that others, including the writer of the post have made
him so?

Irving is a purveyor of hate-crime.

by Free Thinker Mon Feb 25, 2008 17:57

''I dont agree with what you say but I will die for your right to say it'' Voltaire
This is a debate on free speech not on the Holocost. And as evident by that article it's very much needed. This facist supresion of basic freedoms must stop. Should we 'silence' those who think differently from us why not have a mass book burning ceremony of literature we disagree with.
If you oppose David Irving fine do so but please don't attempt to justify you supresion of his basic rights and then scream about your own when the thought police knock on your door.
''If don't believe in Freedom of Speech for Everyone you believe in it for no-one''
Noam Chomsky

by SP member Mon Feb 25, 2008 18:06

Irving will be stopped, there will be no platform allowed for a fascist. Watch out for details of campaign to organise a major protest to stop Irving from spreading his fascist ideas.

by Biker Mon Feb 25, 2008 18:36

Why are they inviting this man? This is the third time they have attempted to bring this man to speak in Cork - not so long ago he was jailed in Austria for breaching local laws there.

He's been stopped before and will be stopped again.

by @ntifa Mon Feb 25, 2008 20:48

http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/cork.html

Novemember, 1999.

''David Irving, the notorious Nazi holocaust denier, was prevented from speaking in University College Cork as 600 protesters surrounded the science building... by anti-fascist militants''

No Pasaran.

1.6.1 ITA

by . Mon Feb 25, 2008 22:12

According to UCC Philosophical Society Forum, Irivng is due to speak in UCC on Monday, March the 10th NOT the 20th.

by Briste Mon Feb 25, 2008 22:41

I've read that Irving has drawn the ire of his peers after he discovered a new document from Nazi Germany. Apparantly this document quotes a high ranking Nazi talking about exterminating Jews. Some of his supporters are claiming he is about to recognise some sort of mass murder plan by the Nazis against the Jews and go against their Holocaust denial opinions. Maybe you should see what he has to say before blindly starting protests.

by Free Thinker Mon Feb 25, 2008 23:17

That's a good idea Anti-Fascist militants fighting Fascism with Fascism. These are the same useful idiots that murder and die for people like Stalin in the name of fighting Fascism. Anything that's labeled Left is good and Right is evil even though most of the time those paradigms are not warranted but everyone has to be labeled and pigeon hold.
As we see with Nazism ,Communism and Neo-Con/Liberal ideology they are Frankensteinish mixes of what could be called Right or Left.
Would you rather be hit with the Right Iron fist or the Left Iron fist. Freedom and Justice are not subjective and limited only to those you agree with but objective and a threat to anyone's right to Freedom and Justice is a threat to every-ones.
If you disagree with David Irving great but instead of silencing him like Fascist thugs why not debate him or ignore him whatever you think best.

by Dissident Werewolf Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:00

"If you disagree with David Irving great but instead of silencing him like Fascist thugs why not debate him or ignore him whatever you think best"

1. There is no debating with fascists, you can not enter into a sensible debate with someone who would enslave entire peoples, the ideas are poison and need to be stopped

2. There is no ignoring fascists, they do not need a majority to become a serious threat, all they need is a small critical mass and the fight will become too difficult

3. Those who confront fascists and deny them a platform to spread hate do not simply wreck the place and leave laughing, they provide a space in which people who do not wish to subjugate others can live without fear

No Pasaran

by Me fein Tue Feb 26, 2008 01:12

Free thinker, you've fallen into a classic trap there, just like the anti-fascists who become communists. Irving's views are discredited by most serious historians and they are repugnant to many people. Me included. I don't want this fellow given a platform and the people who invited him to UCC should be held accountable for this. Doubtless these are sinister little self-promoting twerps like the LawSoc in UCD who offered a platform to Le Pen. Irving has the right to free speech. He has been heard, rebutted and even jailed for incitement to hatred. His arguments are false and offensive and should not be given the platform of an NUI college. This offends me as an NUI graduate. He has the right to free speech in the street or in the pub. He'll quickly find his views are wrong and rely on naive people (perhaps like yourself) to provide camoflage for his odious and FALSE revisions of history under the cloak of "free speech" or "alternative perspectives" or "all opinions are equal".

His views are incorrect factually. They are irreverent, tasteless and provocative. They are discredited academically and his low social standing is merited. The fools who invited him to UCC should be named and should publicly defend their decision to invite him here and deal with the consequences (their shaming I imagine) or they should rescind his invitation and resign their positions.

by the digger Tue Feb 26, 2008 08:38

Brilliant reply, me fein. Far more lucid than anything I could put across but encompassess all of the valid arguments pefectly. If you don't mind, I might nick this and use it elsewhere. Thanks.

by Ceann Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:19

You do realise what this debate is actually going to be about? It's nothing to do with his view of history. It's a debate about free speech. That's all they're going to be talking about. It would be truly ironic that a debate about free speech should be broken up by those who don't believe in free speech for all. Is Irving now not allowed to talk about anything in public without being threatened by thugs?

by John Barren Tue Feb 26, 2008 16:23

The guy who invited him, the auditor of the philosophy debating society, is called Ross Frennet. He's also in the running for SU president, apparently he's the leading candidate.

by me fein aris Tue Feb 26, 2008 16:52

The debate might be on free speech, in which case a proponent of the right to free speech is free to use Irving as an example. Why should Irving speak on free speech? He is not a campaigner for free speech as a virtue in itself. He propogates a distasteful and unpopular revisionism which is unrelated to the question of free speech. In many places his views are offensive and he is unwelcome. He has free speech. He does not have a free pulpit. Even if he had done academic research on the merits of free speech or censorship in general and thus had something meaningful or original to contribute to such a debate, I would still oppose him being offered a platform in the NUI. Let him speak in the kitchens of these students' accomodation, I won't object.

If the debate is about free speech, it is understandable that people speak about Irving. But why invite him to speak in the NUI? It seems consistent with a careerist looking for cheap publicity. I hope somebody in Cork with some legal nous can establish a case along these lines and put it to this careerist in order to nip this horrible idea in the bud: Irving incites hatred. Student X INVITES Irving to speak at a NUI college. Student X defends his position in the name of defending free speech. It is established that inviting Irvine is unnecessary to make a case for defending the right to free speech and that this is within the comprehension of Student X. Conclusion A: Student X did not think this plan through (most likely). Conclusion B: Student X is knowingly facilitating this incitement of hatred.

Remember, it is an honour to speak at these events and if you are reading this, Student X, or a sympathiser, perhaps you should consider whether such an honour should be afforded to Mr Irving.

by Devils Advocate Tue Feb 26, 2008 16:53

i dont agree with david irving or his ideas. but i do feel that the price of freedom is having to listen to those who you disagree with even if what they are saying is offensive to you. one cannot prohibit free speach. david irving has a democratic right to go where he wants meet who he wants to take part in a debate or not just as any reader of this board has the right to listen or to walk away. if we ban david irvin then who decides what we listen to You Me ???? I will not be attending this event but that is my choice to make not anybody elses just as i do not have the right to prohibit you from attending. If david irving was to promote causing harm to anybody then i agree then he should be arrested and prosecuted but if if is denying that an event ever happened then thats his choice ( i think he is a loon but thats my opinion. there are a number of events meetings etc that i would never subscribe to but thats my choice. let individuals decide their own opinions. if we as a society start to decide what one gatherings one should be able to attend then we will have another society that may cause another holocast

by Mr. Man Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:26

Colleges have a long history of inviting controversial speakers to debates. It is easy to get worked up for giving them a legitimate platform to disseminate their views, however, my experience is that these debates are fantastic practices of free speech. Furthermore, as a debate, it gives a chance to the public and the highly capable and intelligent debating teams of the colleges to challenge the speakers viewpoint and opinion.

Personally, Irvine's views are reprehenible to me for a variety of reasons and occasions like this are a great opputunity to see some talented debators take him apart.

Let him speak, he is free to do so, just as we are free to call him a twat and discredit him. To restrict him only makes us the facists.

by Free Thinker Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:35

I have not fallen for any trap of 'Free Speech'. If we silence David Irving who's next those have a different point of view of the conflict in Northern Ireland from the main stream ,those who question the official story of 9/11 where will it end.
The day is coming when people like those at Indymedia may find themselves being silenced for espousing alternative views. But I'm sure hypocrisy will not be above them then when they are complaining about their rights to Free Speech.
David Irving argues that Hitler didnt intend or was aware of the mass killing of Jews maybe you should read what he as actually said not what people have said about him. I do not agree with or like Mr. Irving but it's his right as it is mine and yours to have an alternative view of history. But the debate is NOT about history it's about peoples basic rights to think and say what they see fit.
It's a sad day when we cannot have a debate on Free Speech because someone who's point of view differs from that of the mainstream is taking part in it.
But thank you you have given me an excellent reference for my theory that people do not even need the government or Big Brother to suppress them and act as thought police we have each other to do that. We don't need a sheep dog.
And by the way supporting Free speech for everyone no matter who they are or what their political opinion is is not a trap but the logical outcome of any reasonable person once they overcome their emotional and political paradigm and or any other dogma.

by me fein Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:46

I'm going through some of your points here:
"..david irving has a democratic right to go where he wants meet who he wants to take part in a debate or not just as any reader of this board has the right to listen or to walk away. if we ban david irvin then who decides what we listen to You Me ????"

We cannot ban anybody. There is no mention of a ban. He should not be invited. He can come over and attend at his own expense and as a man off the street. A man with odious views. I have the right to not attend (I probably would attend to be honest). I also have the right to protest at him being offered a platform, which I intend to use. My protests here are rational arguments that I hope fair-minded people will agree with.

"I will not be attending this event but that is my choice to make not anybody elses just as i do not have the right to prohibit you from attending. "

It is your right not to attend. You cannot prohibit me from doing anything. This idea again, 'ban, prohibit'. This event should not take place in the NUI. Let them rent a hall from somewhere which does not implicate me as condoning this invitation or have it in their houses.

" let individuals decide their own opinions."

Otherwise they wouldn't be their opinions. I don't want to control anybody's thoughts and anyway I cannot, just as you or anybody else cannot control mine.

" if we as a society start to decide what one gatherings one should be able to attend then we will have another society that may cause another holocast"

I am not proposing to deny anybody the right to attend any gathering they want, nor is that within my power. I don't want Irving invited to the NUI. I am opposing this invitation. Your last sentence is perhaps a bit speculative and sensationalist but I agree that we should be careful which views are being suppressed by public opinion or by those in control of information. If you haven't heard Irving's (discredited) revisions of history, they are freely available on the internet. Having checked them for yourself you will probably wonder why such a man would be INVITED to speak at the NUI, on an unrelated topic in which he has no professional expertise.

by supertramp Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:50

Dear Dissident Wherewolf.

A little bit of editing is required:

1. There is no debating with fascists/trots. You cannot enter into sensible debate with someone who would enslave entire peoples. Their ideas are poison and should be given enough rope to hang themselves - as they always do.

2. There is no ignoring fascists/trots. They are noisy and unpleasant, but neither are a serious (or any other kind of) threat.

3. Those who confront fascists/trots and try to deny them a platform are just playing into the hands of fascists/trots by giving them the false impression that they matter or are relevant.

no pisserant

by me fein (quick response) Tue Feb 26, 2008 18:03

Mr Man, I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. That is why I would attend this debate. I don't think he should be invited.

Free Thinker - I am not advocating 'silencing' Mr Irvine (which could be misinterpreted). I oppose to him being invited and offered a platform in any NUI college.

"The day is coming when people like those at Indymedia may find themselves being silenced for espousing alternative views. But I'm sure hypocrisy will not be above them then when they are complaining about their rights to Free Speech."

Perhaps you are one of "them". I hope this is not bait. I won't argue about Irving's views. You might know more than me about them, but I understand they have been discredited by other historians. I also acknowledge that he is a very talented historian. I dispute that he merits a platform in the NUI.

"But thank you you have given me an excellent reference for my theory that people do not even need the government or Big Brother to suppress them and act as thought police we have each other to do that. We don't need a sheep dog."

You're welcome. It's hardly a new theory though. It's a consequence of living in societies. It's also the reason that we believe the likes of Einstein and Darwin rather than the guy with the cudgel. This is not suppression. One form of suppression is believing falsehoods.

Beirigi bua

by Free Thinker Tue Feb 26, 2008 20:44

So Me Fein what do you think should be done about the debate should Anti-Fascist militants use Fascist methods to stop this expression of Freedom or do you instead intend to protest peacefully and oppose bullying to stop him as happened before?
You seem to have changed your position

''There is no debating with fascists, you can not enter into a sensible debate with someone who would enslave entire peoples, the ideas are poison and need to be stopped''

But now you say that you only oppose him being invited by an NUI college. Could you clarify if you oppose allowing Mr.Irving to speak or not? Would you support the 'Anti-Fascist' Fascists in physically stopping him from speaking or will you rise above them and except the right of everyone regardless of how repugnant to you they may be to think ,feel and say whatever they see fit?

And I would not support the enforcement of any dogma as a a sole truth be it creationism or the theory of evolution.

Also if people believe 'falsehoods' as you seem them as-long as they do not impose or pressurise them on anyone else it's not your right or responsibility to attack them.

by Idontknow! - none Tue Feb 26, 2008 21:34

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Fascism denies civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, which is not very different from whats going on here. We all know Irving is a Holocaust Denier, i'm familiar with his work and to be frank, I find it as vile and repulsive as those who seek to prevent him from coming to Cork, but isn't the best way to deal with someone like him to refute all he has to say in an academic and rational manner? If we can pull his arguments apart with the power of truth, then surely thats the best punishment.

by me fein Tue Feb 26, 2008 23:24

Internet debate can often be antagonising, please excuse the sharp nature of my replies here. I will answer your post outlining my position but I don't represent anybody except myself.

"You seem to have changed your position
-''There is no debating with fascists, you can not enter into a sensible debate with someone who would enslave entire peoples, the ideas are poison and need to be stopped''
But now you say that you only oppose him being invited by an NUI college. Could you clarify if you oppose allowing Mr.Irving to speak or not?"

The quote you attribute to me is not mine but was a comment made by 'dissident wherewolf'. My position has not changed, but it might over the course of a debate. I am consistently against Mr Irving being INVITED and offered a platform for his views by any NUI college. I am a graduate of the NUI. Everybody, including Mr Irvine, has the right to speak of course. It is not a matter for me or anyone else except some deluded megalomaniac to 'allow' any other person to air their views. This is not an issue for me. I oppose him being offered a platform at all, but especially in an NUI college. His academic views have been thoroughly discredited by scholars and his political views are nauseating to many people, across the political spectrum. As scoundrels do, he is misusing the laudable concept of free speech to obtain an unmerited platform from which his obnoxious views might find a receptive hearer (a naive person I imagine). He is free to speak, it is thuggery to suggest otherwise but he does not merit a platform and I oppose him speaking as an invited speaker in the NUI. If he registers for some course in NUI and joins the debating society and speaks as any other student then that is fine with me. Inviting this man who is infamous rather than famous is not broad-minded on the part of the students and is not doing any service to the concept of free speech.

" Would you support the 'Anti-Fascist' Fascists in physically stopping him from speaking or will you rise above them and except the right of everyone regardless of how repugnant to you they may be to think ,feel and say whatever they see fit?"

I don't know who these people are, I represent my own point of view. I don't rise above others. I accept and will defend the right of everyone to think, feel and say whatever they see fit. Not everyone has the right to a platform in a university. Please don't resort to attacking straw-men. This is a very serious issue.

"And I would not support the enforcement of any dogma as a a sole truth be it creationism or the theory of evolution."

Neither would I.

"Also if people believe 'falsehoods' as you seem them as-long as they do not impose or pressurise them on anyone else it's not your right or responsibility to attack them."

I don't attack any people. As for attacking falsehoods, I prefer 'questioning' or a less aggressive verb than attacking. I believe in many 'falsehoods', certainly in many unprovables and I respect others' genuinely-held beliefs. This debate is not about me or you though. Mr Irving's views have been debated. They have been discredited. They are found offensive. Most people shun the man with the views, finding both to be odious and dangerous. He is not a martyr for free speech. He does not merit a platform in this debate. It is in bad taste to offer him a platform in any debate. But especially in a university, where he can gain credibility for himself and his views. The episode stinks of self-promotion, sensationalism and shameless public relations on the part of some spineless, foolish and naive society person who has never been burnt playing with fire or considered the real and lasting effects of such silly actions.

by Denis MacEoin Wed Feb 27, 2008 00:47

I have devoted much of a long life to defending freedom of speech. I have encountered great personal damage to do so. Yet I would ban Irving and others like him from public debate. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Should paedophiles be allowed to spread ideas and images on the internet? Should anti-Semites be allowed to call for the deaths of Jews? Should Islamo-fascists be allowed to publish and distribute material calling for jihad and the violent deaths of non-believers? Holocaust denial is one of the sickest ideas around. Imagine you have survived Auschwitz and then see David Irving's grinning leering out of a newspaper, telling you you had really been in a holiday camp and that there had never been a Final Solution. Then you think of the thirty, forty, fifty, and more members of your family who died at the hands of the SS. Who has the better right to free expression: the Holocaust survivor or David Irving? To say they both have that right makes a mockery of what free speech is for: to determine the truth. No serious person anywhere (outside Iran) thinks Irving or Faurisson or the other deniers come anywhere within spitting distance of the truth. This is not about free speech, it's about some clever-clever student types (I was one myself, for 12 years, and I know what it's like) trying to make an impression after someone at the Oxford Union did the same thing. They should all grow up.

by Biker Wed Feb 27, 2008 09:23

It should not be forgotten that on a number of occasions over the last few years small neo-fascists have arisen in Cork and fascist literature was distributed in the city centre. On one occasion a television documentary showed uniformed people in front of a large swastika filmed at a house in Cork. Attacks on minorities have been on the increase and there are some people only waiting for a Messiah like David Irving to inspire them to hatred and violence. That's why Iriving must be stopped.

by peu Wed Feb 27, 2008 16:32

Who the hell has the right to stop david Irving. He has every right to speak.

by SP member Wed Feb 27, 2008 16:56

I can tell you Peu who has the right to stop David Irving from speaking - we have, along with the hundreds of other socialists, trade unionists and anti-fascists who will protest. We have stopped him twice before and we will do it again. Irving will not speak in Cork he will be stopped by any means necessary!

For all of those who are going on about David Irving's right to free speech. He doesn't have a right to free speech he is a fascist. Irving's visit to Cork has been advertised on a fascist website. The website also calls for fascists to turn up in UCC to support Irving on the night. In the last few weeks fascist stickers have been appearing around Cork - coincidence?

by Cork Punk Wed Feb 27, 2008 21:22

Who is organising a demo against Irving? Details?

No Platform.

by Whatever Wed Feb 27, 2008 21:56

Irvine will talk despite Sp members rather lame threat or whatever that was.

Best thing to do is ignore him. (Irvine that is) So what if he denies the holocaust, what difference does it make. We all know the truth, leave him to his illusions.

by oooo Wed Feb 27, 2008 23:41

SP Member you are a disgrace to your party. Your point of view is rubbish. Free Speech must be vindicated. Furthermore, while I believe what is said about the holocaust, I would not be willing to stop those who wish to question it from questioning it.

Why must we listen to what the SP want us to hear. Again, its another good reason why the SP are a fringe group with no proper representation

by Objective Thu Feb 28, 2008 00:52

I find it infuriating that certain groups feel that they can bully, threaten and use physical violence in order to stop someone from voicing an opinion. As a history student I would be interested in hearing what Mr. Irving has to say. I do not support holocaust denial or any such right wing rubbish but all the same what harm is there in letting the man speak? Just who exactly do so called 'militant anti-fascists' think they are defending and what real threat is this relatively old man causing? I don't think the majority of the people who are against Mr.Irving have even bothered to research him or his work. I haven't studied him extensively myself but it only took a small bit of searching to discover that hes not some militant, anti-semetic neo nazi. Obviously the man holds some controversial opinions, but does he not deserve a say? Are certain things not to be challenged or questioned simply because a group of violent ilinformed thugs deem it so? The so called 'militant anti-fascists' are the people I'd be worried about, I don't see anyone else forcing their will upon people and threatening those who refuse to fall into line. Also, if you're going to to be 'militantly' against something perhaps you should research it first. Fascism and German national socialism/nazism are two very different things, whilst I support neither political ideology I find it rediculous that these people haven't even bothered to read up on what exacly they're against. Fascism is neither anti-semetic or racist. Mussoloini(a former socialist) started the fascist party and pretty much continued to hold the same views he always had, only he believed people should be loyal to the state, no matter what ethnicity or religion you were. What are people afraid of, that those who attend the lecture will magically be indoctrinated into some sort of neo-nazi cult?

by comment Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:38

a bit of context. The post opens with the mention of David Irving 'the most famous holocaust denier' etcetera.
two things:

1. he is famous for making a name for himself in denial of crime. he is famous because he has made himself
both famous and notorious, which would suggest that theres money in it. theres PR in it.
This suggest a conscientious and rational approach to fame-getting built on abuse of victims of the
Nazi regime. that, in itself is enough to advise of the type of person he is and is nothing to do with
free speech. will we welcome Alistair cambell for being a bliar apologist?
did we welcome Kissinger?

The man makes his living from denying the Shoah. Those who invited him did so because it does
not matter to them, they are supporting an edifice of 'free speech' grounded in hate-crime and
incitement through simple profit-getting. (for Irving)

2. The Shoah or Holocaust provided the template for what we see in the current western
push on the muslim faith, it provides the template for the race supremacy of the Bush regime.
and we are witness to that- if one of us went to a college in thirty or fourty years with the express
and rational purpose of denying what is happening now in War- we would be making our living out of that
= he is a snake oil salesman.

would it not destroy the memory of those who have in conscience fought against the war for years?

So Irving makes money out of misery and is defended in his aspiration by an edifice of free-speech,
he tramples on the resistance, the murders, the victims to make hard cash. cos thats ok
others do the work and he gets the publicity- what a little shit that makes him...

by gdd Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:46

0851425021 - Ross can be contacted on this number if you wish to ask him to have some sense.

by Peaked Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:02

I am repeatedly amazed at the lengths that the anti-Irving conspiracy goes to stop him from speaking. If his facts are wrong, bring out the facts that so prove. All the screed against him seems personal and unrelated to the issue at hand. No one has ever tried to silence Lipstadt in her replies to Irving. Let him/them speak, for goodness sake. Stop your sniveling and have a reasoned debate. Don't tell me that you won't debate because it gives Irving credence. That is the excuse of someone who has nothing to argue.

by Comment Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:04

if someone came to ireland to deny Gaza would it spit on the memory of rachel corrie?
if someone comes to ireland and says renidition did not happen would it spit on the memory of
our friends who have gone ovver and over to shannon to point it out?
The shoah/holocaust is exactly the same
as is iraq.
gaza.
nyc.

people who deny the workers against war and the victims of war for profit and notoriety,
deserve contempt not welcome.

this is nothing to do with free speech- this is to do with creating profit for the crime of denial of war
and notoriety for the people who invite him

btw Le Pen just got a suspended sentence.

ring ross at above number and let him know..

by Dave Catleugh Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:10 dave at pentagramz dot com

David Irving has a legal right to free speech in the UK, where he has never broken any laws. The real fascists are those who would try and prevent people listening to him, by, amongst other methods, violent demonstrations, threats of violence, and commercial blackmail. I am tired of people criticizing books that they have never read, condemning what people say, before they have even said it, or trying to prevent people expressing their legally held opinions. If Mr. Irving says anything that the police consider to be illegal, then I suggest they stop the debate and arrest him! Otherwise, let people decide for themselves whether they want to go and listen, or stay away, even though YOU think you know better.

by Biker Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:48

Cork isn't part of the UK. The Cork No.1 Brigade of the IRA put an end to that nearly a century ago.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:59

The Stop Irving Campaign have called a protest to stop the Nazi David Irving from speaking in UCC. All those opposed to fascism and racism are asked to assemble at 6.30pm at the main gates of UCC on Monday 10 March.

by Comment Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:43

He is in denial of crime and he is making money of it-

what is he to speak on?

Cloning?
Diet?
Religion?
Hate Crime?
Rights of expression?

or is a man who denied the holocaust/shoah cashing in on his notoriety in order to
make money out of massacre- its really that simple- he is on record denying the
Shoah and he is'famous' for it (he is described as such at the top of this page)

This is not about freedom of speech -it is about a holocaust denier who makes money out
of his notoriety coming to Cork to make more money, and as I said above- if anyone on these
lists went on a speaking tour denying rendition then they would be sullying the memory of
the workers against war and the victims of US crime. The only difference between
Irving and any other 'entrepreneur' is that he thinks its ok- cos the Shoah was generations
ago.
I said it above and repeating it now- do people support those who deny
Gaza.
NYC.
Rachel Corrie.
Iraq.

what is the difference- that a businessman who is charged with hate crime-
chooses to sell his crap here- by cashing in on war denial.

how fucking dare he?

by pete - nil Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:56

Seems the only people who will be allowed free speech are the trots.The rest if some people have their way will be silenced one way or another. They used to do this in the old DDR with an organisation called the Stasi. Anyway what are you afraid of.?..if he is a falsifier and lier let him be exposed, if not let us hear him

by Eiztarigorri Thu Feb 28, 2008 13:06

Dear Friends:

As far as I am concerned I have not much idea on the Holocaust but I htink there are a cuple of things would it better to make clear. First, Holocaust, as in whatever murder case, should have used the normal investigation way in every criminal case and, as I know, I ignore, if everything what was said on this matter is Ok , why the only autopsies of Jews corpses are from Struthoff Concentration Camp made by Allied Forensies and none of them have anything to do with B Zyclon but hungry and Tifus. Do you think the importance of the allegations against German on Trial were not important enough to have made a normal forensic research? If instead of nazis we were speaking on we ourselves do you think would be admissible to accept a denounce without more background than denouncer's word. Second General orders are translated in particular ones, and such operation should have left a documentary trace. But according to the Allied Attorney everything was made by oral way, than means that III Reich's Official relatinonships were based in truthfulness. Than means orders were not checked to be fulfilled, and nobody checked where the orders came from. I remember that, during France's campaigne, fake German orders broke French Army resistance and I remember that Walkiria operation (the Failed Coup d'età against Hitler) failed due to inferior commands' checking of superior orders. Do you mean that German Army checked orders during Walkiria operation but not during an order like the called-Final Solution that could affect the German Military Effort. I remember that according Burton Klein Economic preparation for War(Study made by Allied undertaking) Germany needed 3'8 workers more to be in disposition to win the war. Does not seem strange such an order. Do you think what Razi, (Rabi Shlomo Ben Isaak ) said in XIII century on the interpretation on Isaiah 53 Patient Yaveh's Serf as Israel in colective sense against Christian interpretation that consider Jesucrist as object of the profecy has nothing to do with it.

I apologise if anybody feels offended, it was not may intention but ,as Classic says, I am Cicero´s friend but I am more friend of Truth.

by Academic Researcher Thu Feb 28, 2008 14:53

"he is a historian, and a higly regarded one at that"

He is actually held in the lowest regard of any academic in the world, second to none. Once an academic has been shown to have falsified their research, their stock generally drops to below zero. Irving is one of the only researchers in the world who has had a court find that he has consciously falsified the data.

So, not only is there an academic consensus that his theories are completely insane and deluded, but he has been proven to be a liar and a falsifier. There is no informational merit in listening to such a person - we know in advance that he's pushing deluded rubbish. The only possible reason for giving such a person a platform is either
a) to attract attention through controversy
or
b) to help him in his quest to become a rallying point for neo-nazis.

In any case, in this situation Irving is not being asked to speak on history, he is speaking on freedom of speech - an even more absurd propostion since he doesn't actually believe in freedom of speech in the abstract, he just supports it for himself - he has nothing interesting to say on it as it is merely a crutch to his desire to spread hateful delusions.

by Joe Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:01

What are people afraid he will say? Why must he be silenced? Is he any more dangerous that Bertie Ahern or Mary Harney? The mature thing to do if you do not agree with his points is to respond to them with corrections. If he is allowed to make his points and they are incorrect then it is easy to rebutt them. What's the problem?

There is no 'religion' other than Zionism that holds an historical event as sacred and beyond question. I for one am not a Zionist, are you?

I suppose I will now be branded a, 'Holocaust Denier' for expression such anti-Zionist views?

by UCC graduate - my shame Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:13

If you went back 20 years to look at what the UCC Philosophical Society were up to, you'd find they were trying to pull off the same thing back then. The baby barristers who have always exerted a 'dictatorship of the right sort of people' over that debating society have engaged in this battle of wills with the radical left in Cork for a very long time, and they've (nearly) always lost. It has become something of a ritual for the cream of Cork (very rich and thick heading towards ignorant), to be enjoyed alongside going to Pres, drinking in South's, and having a coke-induced heart seizure at 29.
When it comes to defending 'free speech' our baby barristers have always offered their audience over to fascists like Irving or notorious criminals like Henry Kissinger. There never has been a chance of those types offering say, a famous unreconstructed Stalinist, the floor of the Philosoph in order to justify the gulag archipelago and secret police methods. One reason is that the state terror of Stalinism was partly aimed at members of the class most Philosoph officers aspire to join. Another is that the Philosoph types are very hostile to the incidental freight of the Stalin ideology, viz. economic equality, and any form of communism, even the bogus form offered by Stalinists.
Conversely, fascists are the ally of last resort for Philosoph types; the relationship is quite similar to that between working-class loyalism and big-house unionism up north - 'in the normal run of things we'll piss on you the same as everyone else, but when the risen people threaten to take our privileges away you'll be our best friends ever'. This ritual may be a cheap way by which 'the future of the country' ingratiates itself with elements it would hope to use should the class war go against them.
It is a typical provocation from the junior ranks of the class enemy. It has to be opposed vigorously every time it occurs, because backing down only encourages the baby barristers to further outrages, and it reminds the students of UCC that public utterances are always contentious and that public space is not as aseptic and vanilla-flavoured as IBEC, ISME, Junior Chambers of Ireland and An Garda Siochana would have us all believe.
Bash the Fash!

by Academic Researcher Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:14

His points have been answered, many, many times in the academic literature with overwhelming evidence and almost unanimous agreement. He is a liar and a fraud, so he naturally ignores all objections. A public meeting where he has a platform is not a good way of challenging his points - by giving him a platform, there is an assumption that he has something worth saying. He doesn't, it's just a delusional tissue of lies and conspiralunacy. The facts of the holocaust are not immune from scrutiny in any way. There is a large body of researchers who continue to investigate the details of the mass exterminations carried out by the nazis and there are many debates within the field. The thing is though, that in such debates, nobody cares what a liar and fraud thinks.

Irving's point of view is not taken seriously by anybody at all who is familiar with the evidence. Since he was proven to be a liar and falsifier, nobody with half a brain would even bother listening to him anymore.

by blogger1 Thu Feb 28, 2008 15:46

Just with respect to the libel trial in England, the Court's decision is over a hundred pages. The proverbial critic never took that stand in her own defense and her legal bills were several million pound while Irving represented himself (which is proof he really is nuts). Oj simpson got off for murder by paying his lawyers truck fulls of money - I would not read to much into the judgment - incredible deal though

by tomeile Thu Feb 28, 2008 16:36

You've really got to decide what Irving’s agenda is and what he is being invited to UCC for . He can say it's to convince people of the validity of his arguments and to fight for the right to say as he likes in a free country ,just like the people who published the anti-muslim cartoons in Denmark said that they were fighting for freedom of speech . It’s not true .

In a way Irving is an egotistical crank and of course a proven liar .It's the people who facilitate him and offer him platforms that you have to worry about . The students union that present Irving as a serious academic insult the memories of the millions who died in the concentration camps. Surely they realise that .The existence of the the murder camps where at least six million (the figure is a conservative one) died is not a serious subject for debate for anybody .So why is he getting the invite?

It's because extreme right-wing and fascist groups use meetings like these to organize .These are the sort of people who are behind Irving - people who do not deny the holocaust in their own circles btw - who think that what Hitler did wasn't such a bad thing ,and who given the chance would like to see it happen again . That's what this meeting is about and that's what has to be opposed . Freedom of speech ,yes ,but this meeting is not an exercise in free speech :it is a provocation .

by solli - none Thu Feb 28, 2008 16:47

I paraphrase Noam Chomsky: 'if you do not believe in freedom of speech for one with whom you disagree, you do not believe in freedom of speech at all'. I don't see the problem. If you think Irving is wrong, go there and debate him! Do not 1)censor him 2)smear him. If you censor and/or smear, I conclude that you have NO argument.

by Scaramouche Thu Feb 28, 2008 18:47

"Freedom of speech ,yes ,but this meeting is not an exercise in free speech :it is a provocation ."

Any chance it might provoke a thought?

by Impartial Thu Feb 28, 2008 18:58

The university is free to invite whomever it desires. If certain people do not care to participate in the discussion or witness the invited guest's comments, they are free to respectfully decline to attend. Anything else is completely irrelevant, more notably the arguments presented here about free speech.

by Comment Thu Feb 28, 2008 19:04

Anyone who would spend a perfectly good evening listening to someone who would profit
from denying the Shoah obviously needs their head seeing to, not to mention those that
would invite such a person onto a campus. Holocaust/genocide denial, be it in:

NYC.
Gaza.
Iraq.
Rwanda.

is a serious issue, a criminal act and those that support Mr Irving (and his lack of published
itinerary) should be aware of that.

That the man profits from creating pain and damage is enough to turn me off, I suppouse
he shall be speaking of his gardening habits or some such shite.

by Vard Thu Feb 28, 2008 19:25

You can't fight fascism with fascism, let the man speak - debate him then and arrive at a hopefully reasonable outcome.

I presume this comment will now be the subject of blatant "Doublethink" or "Blackwhite", lets keep it rational - let him speak, you've had your turn and will have your turn again in the not to disant future.

by Someone Thu Feb 28, 2008 19:33

If suppression of an opinion is taking place then you can guarantee that there is distortion of the truth.

by Cork Punk Thu Feb 28, 2008 20:04

Why are you calling for a demo at 6:30pm if David Iriving is talking at 6pm?

Would it not make more sense to call it for 5pm and block the entrance?

by me fein Thu Feb 28, 2008 22:37

Amongst the needless and juvenile trolling (mentions of 'Irving in the UK' or visiting 'Ireland and the six counties' etc.), there are some thoughtful responses here from people defending this invitation to Irving. Perhaps people want to 'rise' anti-fascists for some reason but you are picking the wrong issue for games here. People of all political hues who read these boards, people who care about our imperfect society and who empathise with others and who will show solidarity with others in need, such people should all be united against Irving being invited to speak at the NUI, even if it's merely a student society event, promoted perhaps by a shameless, irresponsible and self-publicising student politician.

This is not the place or the event to reopen old wounds on other issues. This is a discredited academic who promotes a vile philosophy. Sadly this philosophy can resonate in each of us, being human. This worldview he supports is dangerous and distasteful. True, it is "anti-establishment" and "alternative" but it is also false, offensive, intellectually bankrupt and inflammatory.

That he comes under the veil of "free speech" is irrelevant. He would come with a crucifix if it would help his case. He would come with a Qu'ran. He does not deserve a platform for his views. The argument has been made and remade many times before. There are always some of us who rush to defend a principle before we think. In this case the principle is free speech. Irving is not a defender of free speech. Don't fall for the trap. If he came as a Christian, invited by a member of the Church, it would not be an attack on Christianity to protest his coming. The rightful target of protest would be the Church member who invited him and the Church who sanctioned it.

Opposing Irvine's invitation is not opposing free speech but opposing the NUI offering such discredited and dangerous mediocrity a respectable platform.

by Controversial Fri Feb 29, 2008 00:17

Half of you disgust me!. You argue about David Irving coming and what it will do in terms of inciting protests and they're bad because they can be violent, then it's people like you who organize such protests. How hypocritical are you?
So what if you don't agree with his views - you don't have to listen to them! And of course it's fitting that The Philosoph invite him - They're a debating society who's meetings are all about have different views and letting people have them. If we have a debate on gay marriage should we not have an opposing side because people find it abhorrant? I find the idea of this protest absolutely pathetic! that you would protest against someone having a view other than yours! Sad sad people!
And calling those who invited him self-promoting or baby barristers or twerps? Could you be more of an idiot? Assesing people you've never met or even heard of because they invite a controversial speaker to talk about free speech? these jibes at Ross because he's the auditor are completely unfounded and ridiculous. and the decision to invite Irving was decided before he spoke at the Oxford Union!

Simple as this
if you don't agree, fine, don't go
If you protest, you should be ashamed to do so if you have any respect for free speech
Making character assesments on a person for deciding to invite a controversial speaker makes you an idiot!

It saddens me to think some of you may be educated!

by diesel Fri Feb 29, 2008 04:55

While reading these comments I am saddened at the authoritarian themes that underlie many of these post. I am assuming that most of these post have been contributed by students or at least individuals affiliated at some level with higher learning. As I understand it, Irving has questioned some of the tenets of what did or did not happen to the Jews in Europe during WWII. Sooooo WHAT!! The world is going to end. This is a free speech and an academic freedom issue that all critically minded people (college students and faculty included with reservation) have a vested interest in protecting. If some of the traditional stories of Jews being turned into soap or made into furniture are historically untenable, let them go. Chalk it up to victor's history, or justifications for the area bombing campaign, but don't bury your head in the sand. Historians understand that much of the blather parrotted in the media and tabloids has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with shaping the perceptions and opinions of the average Joe. It's good old fashion Frankfurt school mind control at work ,and in a democracy to be successfull it only has to work on barely over 50% of the people. Of course it works on much more than that in the general population, Rubes and carnies Baby!!! It just saddens me that at the college level, there are just so many rubes and not enough carnies. History,Time, and Truth are the best of old friends, and every once in great while, they get together to catch up.

by Brian Foley Fri Feb 29, 2008 07:10

Let David speak , who are you to deny any individual to express his opinions and to ,prevent other individuals from listening to their opinions . I am a life long socialist , and I believe those who wish to stifle opinions and debates on other opinions are as worse as any Nazi or Zionist . If you had any intellect you would enter into a debate with Mr Irving in an attempt to prove his version of history as wrong , as I see it those who call for violence to quieten other persons are vicious cowards who destroy free expression .

by Me fein Fri Feb 29, 2008 07:55

Finally somebody who will defend this decision (without actually using any rational arguments). I'd like to dissect some of your points:

"Half of you disgust me!. You argue about David Irving coming and what it will do in terms of inciting protests and they're bad because they can be violent, then it's people like you who organize such protests. How hypocritical are you?"

You've certainly taken a position, rushing headlong into your battle to defend this irresponsible decision to invite this discredited person. I don't see any hypocrisy in opposing an invitation and then protesting. The hypocrisy is more evident in those who accuse people of being "anti free speech" and then opposing their right to express a protest. Anyway this is not the important issue here:

"So what if you don't agree with his views - you don't have to listen to them!"

That's not the issue either. He should not be offered a platform in the NUI for his views. He does not merit it. His views are discredited. His presence can only be interpreted as an inflammatory gesture (unlikely) or as a cheap publicity stunt. If you are fooled into thinking his presence is a brave tribute to enlightenment values and a reaction to the status quo, then you are simply fooled and might consider reflecting on the wider picture here.

"And of course it's fitting that The Philosoph invite him - They're a debating society who's meetings are all about have different views and letting people have them."

Read this sentence again carefully. Now read the final sentence in your post. Committing half-formed thoughts can make you look very foolish.

" If we have a debate on gay marriage should we not have an opposing side because people find it abhorrant?"

This is a straw man argument. The answer is no to your badly formulated question. You should have opposing sides on a debate. A better analogy would be to invite a well-known "gay-basher" to speak at such a debate. A gay-basher whose views were offensive to most people with a passing interest in the issue, offensive to most people who value reasoned debate, heroic to some people who seek an outlet for their rage against any target and a gay-basher whose right to a platform you would defend, in the delusion that you are some kind of warrior for free speech.

" I find the idea of this protest absolutely pathetic! that you would protest against someone having a view other than yours! Sad sad people!
And calling those who invited him self-promoting or baby barristers or twerps? Could you be more of an idiot? Assesing people you've never met or even heard of because they invite a controversial speaker to talk about free speech? "

Wonderful example of irony. Except it's not wonderful.

"these jibes at Ross because he's the auditor are completely unfounded and ridiculous. and the decision to invite Irving was decided before he spoke at the Oxford Union!"

Because he's the auditor... please do not defend the indefensible. The decision to invite Irving was the wrong one. The fact that you've had a lot of time to think about it does not change that. You can still rescind the invitation and make some public reparations to those you might be offending.

"Simple as this
if you don't agree, fine, don't go
If you protest, you should be ashamed to do so if you have any respect for free speech
Making character assesments on a person for deciding to invite a controversial speaker makes you an idiot!"

No, it's not that simple. Please take off the blinkers.

"It saddens me to think some of you may be educated!"

When you come down from your high horse try defending the decision to invite this man to the NUI. He's been defeated in arguments many times before. It hasn't stopped him. I'm sure you too find his views odious. Reflect on why you should offer him a platform. Just because you can? To annoy some of these 'trots' who sicken you? You're not being bullied, you should do the right thing yourself and persuade Ross to drop this man's invitation.

by Suin Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:30

Irving has been utterly discredited in the course of a defamation case in the English high court where the Judge had no difficulty in distinguishing between genuine and bogus historical methodology.

Reputable historians of every political persuasion have exposed Irving and left him without any shred of credibility.

Irving is now a sad case who drifts around the fringes of Nazi pagents. He is also used to generate controversy at student-union debating societies where his pathetic presence is ennobled to beconme the standard-bearer of free speech because the silly left can be guarranteed to give him all the attention he craves.

leave Irving speak to an empty house. For heaven sake don't give him publicity and credibility by trying to disrupt this meeting.

To suggest that Irving is a threat to anyone, or that it is necessary to disrupt his meeting to save the world from fascism is nonsense.

This is 2002 and both the fascists and communists (outside the enclaves of North Korea and Zimbabwe, anyway) have been relegated to the dustbin of history. Neither are relevant or bear a threat to anyone (The combined electoral support for the fringe right and left in Ireland could fit into a double-decker bus. - Hey! thats an idea. And someone could do us all a favour by driving it over a cliff somewhere)

by Andy Fri Feb 29, 2008 17:26

What should arose the ire of anyone committed to "fighting fascism" is not someone speaking, but someone being prevented from speaking. I'm not afraid of listening to communists, fascists, anarchists, or Methodists. I am afraid of people who want to threaten or even imprison people for what they believe and state. David Irving has been imprisoned for a year for offering his opinion on a matter of history; that opinion is offensive to many people, who disagree entirely with it. But how can a free society (what Europe is theoretically aiming for) imprison people for incorrect opinions about history? Is an incorrect belief about something that happened 60 years ago deserving of criminal sanctions?
And why such selectivity on historical "truth?" If someone were to state that Stalin was justified in having millions of his own countrymen killed in purges, where would that person be imprisoned for that belief? Not in Austria, I'm sure. Russia? I don't think so. Would Ireland imprison a speaker who stated his belief that the English occupation was a blessing, and that far fewer Irish died in the Famine than is currently taught? I hope not! Boo him and show he's wrong, if you are confident of your position.
As for Irving being "universally discredited," that certainly isn't the opinion of a number of professional historians, including Keegan and Trevor-Roper, who have praised much of his work and particularly his skill at uncovering primary sources while disagreeing strongly with much of what he writes. People who are knowledgeable and have facts disagree and demonstrate where others err; people who are ignorant prevent those they don't like from speaking.

by history reader Fri Feb 29, 2008 18:16

Freedom of expression has been contested in western society over many centuries. In time of war democratic societies have been subjected to press censorship, Ireland no less during what was termed The Emergency. In recent decades feminists reacted to the sexual freedom of the 60s which led to Denmark allowing film posters with full female nudity to be displayed on main streets. This period called Danish Blue, caused women on the streets great discomfort - they believed that the public posters brought women's bodies into social humiliation. "This degrades women" became a key slogan that was daubed on various billboards that exploited images of women, sometimes in scanty bikinis, in a trivial or prurient way for commercial gain. The Danish Government enacted restrictive legislation to banish Danish Blue from public places.

On the sensitive matter of history I feel that a misguided but intelligent writer like Irving has a right to be wrong and a concomitant right to have his wrongful historical interpretations publicly corrected. Freedom of expression implies a right to have your artistic and intellectual expressions publicly discussed, critiqued and refuted if informed critics deem it necessary.

If a historian wants to publish a book or learned article about Cromwell's campaign in Ireland in 1649 arguing that Cromwell gave besieged Irish cities like Drogheda a chance to surrender and avoid bloodshed, and that subsequent massacres were "understandable" after the offer of peaceful surrender had been rejected, why then I'd support a historian's right to so publish. But I'd equally support the right of opponents of such a soft interpretation of Cromwell's mentality to publish refutatory books and articles and to challenge the offending historian to public debates.

Hasn't something of this ilk actually happened on Indymedia threads recently in response to the flawed RTE documentary programme on the Coolacrease killings during the war of independence? Why be afraid of falsehood being refuted by truth?

by Dame Elsie Weiningburger Fri Feb 29, 2008 23:15

Personally I think young David Irving's interpretation of certain events is more accurate than those presented by
Benjamin Wilkomirski, Jerzy Konsinski or the latest holocaust fraud , wolfwoman Misha Defonseca.

by Caobhin Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:15

So much sympathy for poooor Irving from the usual stream of pedants who shriek their repetative neo-liberal outrage at any hint of physical opposition to a fascist.

You idiots may feel happy to leave the door to fascism open by thinking you can defeat it in your popmous debates but at the end of the day your opinions reek of right-wing sympathies or at best, a level of historical ignorance and political naiviety that renders your opinions on anti-fascism completely irrelevant.

by Student Sat Mar 01, 2008 14:44

I just looked at their website, the philosophy society have had a wide range of speakers this year, from Ted Honderic to Ruairi O’Bradaigh to Joe Higgens and even David McWilliams!!

Do you think that they "endorese" or encourage ALL of their speakers? Becouse if they do, they hold a wide variety of opinions...

Or maibe they're a debating society who don't have positions on things, invite speakers and LET PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS....

by CV Sat Mar 01, 2008 16:02

Following your sophist logic, Myra Hindley would be potential speaker on childcare.

by Student Sat Mar 01, 2008 21:12

Student societys often invite people who have real life experiance to speak on topics, Irving has real life experiance with being jailed for what he said. The debaters in galway invited a prostitute to talk about prostitution.

The way these things go anyway, Irving will just be one of many people speaking on that side of the motion. And he'll probibly be torn to shreads!

They have invited people this year who ACTUALLY kill other people and encourage others to do so. Who have been convicted of Murder and trying to undermine democracy. (O’Bradaigh) but none of you guys had anything to say about that.

by sour naivety. Sat Mar 01, 2008 23:40

You are descended from a prostitute & you are descended from a rapist. Back there in your geneology are murderers, tax evaders, slaves, jolly fine musicians, apostates, saints & thousands of "never amounted to much" types.

Why not have a debate on NeoNazism & then invite Irving to support the motion that "this house would systematically strip citizens of their rights & property, enslave them, experiment on them, starve them, murder them &c.,"

Or is just the oven thing?
Oh yes.
the oven thing.

by Fairness - Student Sun Mar 02, 2008 00:30

Dear All,

Leaving aside the emotional nature of this debate, hyped up by some extremists, if Irving can address the Oxford Union what has Cork got in the way or moral or intellectual superiority to censor the man? A small lunatic fringe always disrupts his meetings, allowing him to plead that extremists have censored him. Let the man speak, refute his opinion in a scholarly way, and victory will be yours. Keep the thugs away though, especially the SF/IRA element.

We gave Sinn Fein /IRA, free speech, made them and paramilitaries part of the peace process after the murders and racketeering they committed and continue to do s for example the UDA, UVF, UFF, extreme Reoublicans etc. Irving cannot be described as being akin to any of them!

If you want freedom to express your views perish the thought others also deserve freedom to air their opinion. What offence, if any, has Irving committed in the Republic? None.

Get a sense of proportion.

Regrads,

Fairness

by Eddie Sun Mar 02, 2008 01:10

Those who would shut up anyone who questions any portion of the Holocaust story might want to check the news on Misha Defonseca, the poor little "Jewish" girl who claimed she survived the Holocaust by running with a wolf pack. Her story, eagerly gobbled up for years by the gullible as part of the whole Shoa business, has finally been exposed as a complete lie. Her confession follows so many other proven Holohoaxers. Yet the "deniers" who doubted her could probably have been prosecuted for "hate crimes" for even questioning her story. Maybe there is some merit in asking questions and challenging what "everyone knows" and what "everyone has proven"?

by a history reader Sun Mar 02, 2008 01:35

As I said previously, people who utter or publish inaccurate or lying opinions and interpretations have a right to be publicly corrected. Any artistic or intellectual work brought before the public is deemed to be there for public scrutiny, for public admiration and agreement, or for public disapproval. Freedom of expression is not one-sided i.e. they publish and we stay quiet.

by Roger Sun Mar 02, 2008 04:25

I’ve just come across this discussion, so I hope I’m not too late to be of any interest. Ordinary bigotry guarantees rejection of an opposing argument when it is put. But it takes exceptional prejudice to deny it before it is heard ! That this should come from students dedicated to the discipline of learning is disgraceful. (Ignorance is a characteristic of bigotry; have his censors read any of David Irving’s books ? Would they have us ban them or burn them? In any case the topic is not the Holocaust.) Some time before the last General Election in the UK, I set up a website ; democraticbritain.org.uk. As free speech and democracy demands, it supported Irving’s right to be properly heard. ( It gives the same support to Arthur Scargill and Socialism in general.) I asked the NEC of the NUS, here in Britain, for their support. They rejected my request on the grounds that my web site was, “..part of the wider far right anti Semitic agenda” !
( If anyone would like the details of our exchange, go to my email address on the web site.)

by Andy Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:25

I am sure that the people opposed to David Irving speaking would have no problem if Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness were
invited. Those two were members of an organisation who actually KILLED people. David Irving has never even been in any
political party or associated with violence in any way.

Don't get me wrong. I would not oppose Gerry or Martin. I am just pointing out the hypocrasy.

Why are people so afraid of Irving? I have met him on a couple of occasions. I can say catagorically that he does NOT deny the
Holocaust. I asked him questions directly about the issue. He isn't a bogeyman and he doesnt preach hatred.

by Suin Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:55

I dissent.

Irving IS a nasty bit of business. He is clearly an admirer of the Aryan-supremisist policies of the Nazis, and his weasel words make it clear that he believes Europe is better off for the removal of six million Jews and the decimation of the Romany population. In any event his agendsa has been well exposed and his writings discredited in the eyes of all but a few hardened or gullible fellow-travellers.

Sure, Adams and McGuinness were both killers or apologists for killers. However, both have mended their ways. No more than Irving, they pose no threat to anyone or anything anymore.

However, that is besides the point. All three have a right to speak without fear of intimidation. They do not however have a right to be listened to. Exercise your good taste and ignore the lot of them. Most sensible people already have.

by tomeile Sun Mar 02, 2008 17:31

If you had read Suin's post you would have seen that it agreed that Irvine should be allowed to speak . I also believe that he and everybody else should have the right to speak ,but that he should be denied a platform to speak from .Just because you support free speech ,you don’t have to provide a platform for every offensive rightwing crank that comes along. That’s what the UCC debating society (over-colleged rich kids surely) is providing and that’s what should be opposed.

At the beginning of this month ,Danish newspapers published the same series of anti-Islamic cartoons that Jyllands-Posten posted three years ago .There have been attacks on Muslims and rioting there since then , giving the police an excuse to clamp down on left wing and Muslim groups . To re-print those images and worse ones on Indymedia as the hopi eire group did was eitheran act of crass stupidity or else a well timed conscious provocation taken in lock-step with extreme rightwing forces .

When the UCC debating society last invited Irving over to Ireland there was a riotous demonstration after which left wing and republican groups had their status on the campus removed by college authorities. But it's very hard not to respond to a provocation .
Some people think that if everybody ignores them they will stop .Unfortunately that's not the way that provocateurs work . If they don’t get a rise out of one stunt, they will go on pushing the boat out until they get the reaction they are looking for.

by Andy Sun Mar 02, 2008 18:17

David Irving has never expressed support for White Supremecist groups. Stop the lies or provide the evidence.

I understand that David Irving does not think that multi-racialism and the multicultural society are a good thing for England. Thats
a perfectly legitimate viewpoint to hold, it doesnt make one a Nazi or a racist.

by Suin Sun Mar 02, 2008 19:02

It is completely contradictory saying that Irving should have a right to speak but should be denied a platform.

Irving has a right to speak. The Students Union have a right to provide him with a platform. You have a right to listen to him. Or not.

I do agree however that the only thing that keeps Irving on the road is the free publicity he can depend on from the silly left. If they all just stayed at home he would soon go away and confine his appearances to his sad Nazi pagents.

In the mean time, Irving and his equally sad fringe oponents, neither having either electoral support or any other relevance, need each other to cod themselves that the other presents an existential threat.

by prospero Sun Mar 02, 2008 21:28

The reason that those left wing groups were banned from UCC was that their members attacked and injured 2 members of UCC's security staff in order to stop a discussion of ideas being organised by other students.

As for giving him a platform, when a society that claims to stand for equality of opinion starts making making judgements about what is what isn't a worthy point of view then they have no right to use the phrase equality of opinion.

by Tom Sun Mar 02, 2008 23:08

Well Andy,

You don't watch much TV then, do you?

We recently had a wonderful documentary on TV about some sad types parading around in Nazi regalia at some camp for swopping and selling mementos of the Third Reich,

And guess who they found in the middle of this gathering selling his tracts from a stall?

You guessed it. The bold David himself.

Ah! how the mighty superman has fallen.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Mar 03, 2008 00:56

Comments which are supportive of David Irving or supportive of his right to speak in UCC have tried to argue that he is; an historian with valid views that should be heard; an historian with loony views and it will do no harm if he is heard; and or that David Irving has a right to free speech.

David Irving’s trip to UCC has nothing to do with his credentials as an historian or free speech. Searchlight, the respected anti-fascist magazine said of David Irving – "He is the embodiment of evil, but just because he is middle-class and doesn’t have a skinhead, he is allowed to speak, to indoctrinate people’s minds and incite hatred". David Irving is a fascist. Fascists have no right to free speech or to politically organise. Fascists are the gravediggers of democracy and free speech.

Fascism isn’t just another political viewpoint or trend of opinion. This discussion cannot take place in a vacuum, as if the 1930s and 1940s had never happened. The horrific reality of what happened when fascism was in power is that six million Jews were systematically murdered by the German Nazi Party and 55 million people died in the Second World War. This death and destruction could have been avoided. Just take note of what Adolf Hitler himself said on the subject: "Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle, and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement".

Anti-fascists have learnt an important lesson from history, that we must do whatever we can to stop the spread of fascist ideas and growth in support for fascist organisations. We believe that we must do this by preventing fascists from organising.

David Irving is not just a misguided historian with confused historical views or someone who is genuinely attempting to get to the "truth" of what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. The purpose of Irving’s speaking tours is not to politely debate history. They are recruitment campaigns for fascist organisations. David Irving has real links to fascist organisations. The fascist BNP has organised meetings for Irving and provided "security" for his tours. When a BNP councillor was elected, Irving said, "it was an encouraging result". In 1978 he spoke in Germany for the German Society for Press Freedom, a fascist organisation established in 1960 by former members of Hitlers’ SS!

Irving stands for the forced "repatriation" of Blacks and Asians from Britain. He believes that women are mentally inferior, existing solely for procreation.

Some quotes from the fascist Irving:
"I have visited Hitler’s eyrie at Berchtersgarten – I regard it as a shrine".
"The gas chambers were erected in Poland for tourists".
"Auschwitz was not an extermination camp. There were no gas chambers there. I think they were a figment of British wartime propaganda".

David Irving claimed that Anne Franks’ diary was a fake, a claim he later withdrew after being sued by her family. In his book Hitlers’ War Irving claims that Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust. A Sunday Times investigation showed that he had deliberately misconstrued evidence. He later refused to withdraw his claims even after the discovery of the memoirs of Adolf Eichmann head of the Gestapo which state – "The Fuhrer has ordered the physical destruction of the Jews".

On Irving’s website you can purchase paintings by Hitler. Irving writes, "Hitler's painting of the Karlskirche (below) is a unique miniature; the one of the Hoftheater in Munich (above right) is simply superb and demonstrates vividly that the man had talent". It also sickeningly states "David Irving personally vouches for the authenticity of all these items"! If you are a fascist you can have a rewarding shopping trip to Irving’s site, you can also buy films of the Nazi Party’s first two Nuremberg rallies and expensive posters of Hitler. Not exactly what you would expect to find on the website of someone who is simply an historian!

Those who have argued that Irving has the right to speak in UCC are fundamentally wrong. And if the above quote from Noam Chomsky is accurate, then he too is wrong. There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech. If there was an absolute right to free speech then why have libel and slander laws? These laws exist because you can’t just say what ever you want, and the majority of those who are arguing that you can’t prohibit free speech would support some form of libel and slander laws.

If it were announced that a UCC society was inviting a paedophile to give a speech on why people should join up with him in the pursuit of sexual relationships with children, (child sex abuse), would this be acceptable? Would the paedophile have the right to free speech, to recruit others to his sick cause? Do paedophiles have the right to openly organise to recruit others to participate in their abuse and exploitation of children? Of course they don’t and this example in of itself exposes the ludicrous idea that there is an absolute right to free speech.

Many of those who have defended David Irving’s right to free speech in the past (for example Kevin Myers) supported the British and Irish government’s laws that restricted the rights of Sinn Fein members to speak on television and radio. They justified this curtailment of Sinn Fein’s right to free speech on the basis that it was linked to the IRA’s terrorist campaign. Yet these very same people said that Irving should have the right to unrestricted free speech because the right to free speech was absolute! Total hypocrisy, but more than that, proof that when it came to the application of the right to free speech to reality that even these so-called stalwart defenders of free speech believed it should be limited in certain circumstances.

A major contributing factor to why a mass fascist party never development in Britain in the 1930s was because on the 4 October 1936 in Cable Street, 300,000 anti-fascists gathered to stop Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists from marching through the East End of London. The fascists were smashed off the streets, a blow from which they never recovered. An eyewitness at the time recalled, "I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism".

Repeating the words of Hitler, "Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle, and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement" – if a similar type confrontation had taken place in Germany which had resulted in the Nazi Party being physically swept from the streets by a mass movement then the right to free speech of the majority of Europe would have been protected – and the extermination camps would never have been built. Fascists use free speech as means to build and grow in order to destroy free speech and democracy – the Nazi Party are historical proof of this fact.

On a fascist website, Irish fascists are discussing their plans to travel to Cork to defend Irving. On Irving’s website it states: "Once a year David Irving travels. In some great cities he just talks, but in others like Chicago (as some of you already know) he holds private dinners, to which you are invited and where you can meet people of like opinions. But first you must come over onto his side". It doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination to read between the lines in this statement and to understand its true meaning. Irving meets in private other fascists and those he hopes to recruit to the cause. David Irving has invited people to give him contact details to partake in such a private meeting while he is in Cork! It couldn’t be clearer – David Irving is travelling to Cork to win people to fascism.

How some people view the Philosoph’s invitation to Irving would be different if we had fascist organisations of the size and scale of the BNP, in Ireland. If fascist thugs were attacking and murdering black people, gays or Jews in your community, as they are across Europe, then you would not be so keen on having a fascist like Irving speak at your local university. And there are fascists in this country trying to organise, trying to build and grow, putting out anti-migrant and white supremacist propaganda. In the last few weeks white supremacist stickers have appeared around the streets of Cork. These scum will use Irving’s visit as a recruitment opportunity.

If you are opposed to fascism and want to defend democratic rights and stop the growth of fascist and racist ideas in Ireland, then you should join the Stop Irving protest. Turn up to the main gate of UCC at 6.30pm on Monday 10 March and join with us in stopping the Nazi Irving from spreading his fascist propaganda and attempting to recruit others to his twisted cause.

by Roger Mon Mar 03, 2008 04:51

My parents’ generation were fighting Fascism when that battle was real. And for what it’s worth that bloody war has been won. You may think of yourself as being part of the frontline troops but you’re on the wrong battlefield. While you spend your time looking under beds for the old enemy, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed in Iraq and the terrible persecution of the Palestinians never ends! David Irving hasn’t killed anyone, neither, as your argument suggests, does he advocate such action. That would be illegal. If you believe he does then go to the meeting and record the offence. You won’t hear it from outside !

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:53

You can learn more about David Irving and his connections to Neo-Nazis and his attempts to build support for the fascist cause by reading the following article.

Irving - A politician, not an historian, in Searchlight magazine July 2000.

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=templ...ry=79

by Suin Mon Mar 03, 2008 13:11

To: Stephen Boyd:

The right of Mr. Iring to speak without fear of intimidation is nothing whatsoever to do with his being a "historian". As a historian he as been thoroughly debunked by mainstream historians and by the courts of law.

Searchlight may be respected by you, but not by most democrats who see it merely as the mirror-image of Irving and the voice of a particular brand of extremist left-wing thuggery

You're right. Fascism isn't just another viewpoint. Neither is Marxism in it's various manifestations. Between them their adherents were responsible for the deaths of millions of human-beings. Democrats are indifferent as to which was worse. They are both vile and discredited. However, it is preferable that the few remaining adherents of both ideologies have a right to speak and promulgate their views. Allowing them expose themselves to democratic scruitiny in the marketplace of ideas rather than making them free-speech martyrs is infintely more effective in preventing the rebirth of either.

And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Both "Searchlight" and Irving have been peddling their respective wares for some considerable time and it is manifestly obvious that neither have managed to attract a substantial number of recruits anywhere.

But of course,that , I well understand, is not the issue for SP types. Both they and Irving need each other. Simply because nobody else does.

by tomeile Mon Mar 03, 2008 13:38

“It is completely contradictory saying that Irving should have a right to speak but should be denied a platform.”

I can’t see any contradiction there Suin . Do people not have the right to refuse Irving a platform , and is it not my right to try to persuade people not to provide him with a platform ? Indymedia has a policy of not allowing fascists a platform , UCC should have the same policy as far as I’m concerned .
Hotels in the Cork area should have the right not to have Irving as a guest ,taxi drivers the right not to take him in their cabs ,bookshops should have the right not to stock his books . If he was to walk into a Jewish bakers and ask for a bagel ,shouldn't the people working there have the right to tell him to fuck off ?

by prospero Mon Mar 03, 2008 14:31

David Irving is an excellent candidate to speak on free speech as he is someone who has had his right to free speech forcibly taken away on many occasians and has a personal interest in the matter. He is also very intelligent and articulate which means he can argue the matter at the highest level of discussion.

His views on the nazis are irrelevant. He is not being invited to support genocide. If he does spout this crap then he will ridiculed and defeated.

It was said that nazis are the gravediggers of democracy and free speech. How is this arguement to take away their free speech? become nazis in order to beat nazis? When you comprimise your ideals, even in the defense of those ideals then you lose and they win. You also said that hitler would have used burtality to put down this movement. Again, you are becoming the thing you seek to fight.

As to the argument that it gives right wingers a place to organise. So do coffee shops. That's no excuse to stop the owner selling coffee to people that want coffee. Targeting a free exchange of ideas to stop them socializing is ridiculous. May as well Stop world war two documentaries because they try to educate peole about nazi germany.

Of course people have the right to refuse him a platform. It's not as he can force left wingers to organise a speech for him. However, When they get that right then they have to respect the right of other people to give him that platform because they believe that to discuss an issue, you need two sides of the debate. In YOUR opinion, the uccphilosophical society (not UCC) shouldn't have him but you have no right to force that opinion on them. Jewish bakers have a right to tell him to fuck off, what you are trying to do is prevent people that do want to sell him a bagle from selling to him which is equaly wrong.

In another world and another time people silenced Communists in America because they didn't like the soviet union and made it impossible for ligitimate left wing views to be expressed without fear of harm. The same is happening now. You may not agree with him, you may argue with him, convince people he is wrong but you do not now and god willing, you will never have, the right to silence him through brutality because you disagree.

by Suin Mon Mar 03, 2008 14:31

Tomeile,

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.

U.C.C. Students Union has a right to allow Irving speak at its meeting. It also has a right not to invite him.

Bakers, Jewish or otherwise, have a right to decide whether or not to sell bagels to Irving.

You have a right to speak out peaceably against UCC giving Irving a platform, or to peaceably exhort UCC SU to reverse its decision to invite him.

What you don't have a right to do is to participate in a violent intimidatory demonstration like the one which attended Irving's last abortive visit to the Southern Capital.

However, much more to the point. The only reason why the press is paying a blind bit of notice to the visit of the Fat Fascist has-been is that the cerebrally challenged left can be depended upon to give him all the publicity he craves by having a riot.

by tomeile Mon Mar 03, 2008 14:58

First of all Suin ,I have certainly not called for a riot at UCC . You should really read what I write and not what you would like me to have written . I have spoken out peaceably urging UCC not to give Irving a platform . You admit that UCC has a right not to give this fascist a platform , but seem to be arguing that it should offer him a platform . Is that the case ?

by yet again Mon Mar 03, 2008 15:52

he has been called a NAZI &/or Fascist &/or White supremacist since 1959, when he openly supported apartheid. He has only taken one legal action - which he lost. The UK Judgement defined him as NeoNazi. Austria imprisoned him for Holocaust denial & falisification of History. It was not free speech. It was a hate crime. Whomever invites him to speak is instrumental in the apologetics for NeoNazi politiics & hate crimes.

Couldn't UCC have invited Griffen?
Must be some Polish neoNazi who'd have cheaper tastes than Irving & could make comparisons between encouraging attacks on foreigners in Poland & their fellow countrymen being murdered in Ireland.

Anyway - it is not a free speech issue. The man was not imprisoned for speaking his mind - he was imprisoned for falsifying history & denying the single most documented complex criminal acts in history. If he had marketed his books as an alternative fictional history it might have been seen differently as the swampfascist fantasy they are. But that is not the case.

Now one of the neoNazi apologists ironically hiding behind the "free speech" banner above asked for proof that he is a NeoNazi. The proof has been provided already. The High court judgement in the UK is linked to above. He lost the case. Under British law, if you lose a libel or slander case you are exactly the Nazi everyone says you are. Or in the case of Oscar Wilde - the thodomite Queensbury said he was.

by Anti-fascist.. Mon Mar 03, 2008 16:26

Prospero,
You are determined it seems to stick to your fanciful position of defending Irvings right to free speech.

You say: "David Irving is an excellent candidate to speak on free speech as he is someone who has had his right to free speech forcibly taken away on many occasians and has a personal interest in the matter. He is also very intelligent and articulate which means he can argue the matter at the highest level of discussion".

Prospero it seems that you admire David Irving and you seem to be looking forward to hearing him speak!

You go on to say: "His views on the nazis are irrelevant. He is not being invited to support genocide. If he does spout this crap then he will ridiculed and defeated."

You have obviously decided to ignore what others have said. Irvings views on the Nazis are not irrelevant. They go to the very heart of the issue. He supports what the Nazis did, he is an admirer of the Nazis. He wants to create a political movement based on the ideas and beliefs of fascism that were embodied in the form of the Nazi Party. How can you come on here and make such a ludicrous statement that Irvings views on the Nazis are irrelevant!

You say: "It was said that nazis are the gravediggers of democracy and free speech. How is this arguement to take away their free speech? become nazis in order to beat nazis? When you comprimise your ideals, even in the defense of those ideals then you lose and they win. You also said that hitler would have used burtality to put down this movement. Again, you are becoming the thing you seek to fight."

Prospero with the hindsight of history would you have supported the "right to free speech" for Hitler and the Nazi Party? The quotation from Hitler deals with this very point and shows that Hitler understood clearly what could have been done to stop him and his party from taking control of society. Hitler knew that people needed to physically stop him and the Nazis from building their party.

Prospero, lets us imagine for a minute that people had organised in sufficient numbers in German in the 1930s and had destroyed the Nazi Party, that Hitler had never taken power. And because of this the holocaust had never happened or the second world war. Do you believe that this would have been a good thing or would you condemn those who stopped Hitler because they had denied him and the Nazis their "right to free speech"? Would you say that those who had stopped Hitler were no better than him? That they had become in reality fascists themselves because they "denied" Hitler his democratic rights?

Or do you stand by what you have already said in your own words - "You may not agree with him, you may argue with him, convince people he is wrong but you do not now and god willing, you will never have, the right to silence him through brutality because you disagree."

I disagree with you people did have the right to silence Hitler with the utmost brutality to smash him and his party into the ground. A bullet through the back of his head and all of the other Nazis would have saved the lives of 55 million people! What is more important Prospero the right to life itself for the 55 million victims of the war, the six million Jews or some academic bullshit about fascists having the right to free speech!

And we do have the right to silence David Irving he is a Nazi and he will be stopped from speaking in UCC.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

No pasarán – they shall not pass!

by Fact Finder Mon Mar 03, 2008 17:53

La Chute,

Please do get your facts right. The programme on TV you refer to was the BBC documentary by John Sweeney who if you go by his screaming and yelling on Scientology i not very professional.

The show you refer to is the "War and Peace Show" and IT IS NOT A NEO NAZI PAGENT. It is a LIVING HISTORY event.

It portrays war from many different arenas but as pointed out in the show most like dressing up in WW2 German uniform, please remember that not all Germans are/were Nazi's.

If you were to check your facts you would have found that there are people playing Brits, US Army ,Union and Confederate, Vietnam 7th Cavalry, Viet Cong there is even an Israeli Defence Force re-enactment group. Needless to say Sweeney never mentioned any of this.

Oh and who is the organiser/promoter of this show Rex Cadman (who happens to be Jewish) so please don't go around claiming the War and Peace show is a Neo Nazi Pagent.

As for Irving being there well he is one of the most famous/notorious (depends on your political bias ) historians of WW2 and if you bothered to check your facts you would find that some of the most importart militaria dealers and booksellers from all over Europe attend.

Lets not forget that they have had Dame Vere Lynne attend the show and Ian Lavender ? (Pike "Stupid boy" of Dads Army acclaim attend as well stalls from the Territorial Army, Regular Forces and the various Cadet forces. Hardly a neo-nazi pagent no is it ? Care to appologise ?

by Revisionism? Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:50

A Belgian woman whose tale of survival with a pack of wolves in Nazi-occupied Europe became a hit film has revealed that she invented the story.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.b...0.stm

No Soap or Lampshades of Human origin have ever been found

Occasionally you hear about human-skin lampshades in private collections. I won't claim to have surveyed the field, but I did speak to Norm Sauer, a professor of forensic anthropology at Michigan State University. Professor Sauer was part of a team of experts that a few years ago examined a number of alleged human souvenirs that had been donated to the Holocaust Memorial Center, now located in Farmington Hills, MI. Among the items were a lampshade (and it really was a lampshade, consisting of panels on a wire frame), two chess sets, and a bar of soap, along with some collections of ashes, bone fragments, and so on. Although some of the bone fragments did appear to be human, most and possibly all of the household objects were not. The chess sets were made of animal but not human bone; the lampshade possibly was deer or goat but not human skin. Tests of the soap were inconclusive. (The alleged practice of rendering human fat into soap is a story unto itself; the common opinion now seems to be that while it may have been made experimentally once, human soap was never produced in quantity.) You never know what will turn up, but without tests, don't assume that just because a lampshade or other item is claimed to be of human origin, it is.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040604.html

And from Debroah Lipstadt:

The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap. The soap rumor was prevalent both during and after the war. It may have had its origin in the cadaver factory atrocity story that came out of World War I. The letters "RJF" probably stood for the name of the factory that produced the soap. The soap rumor was thoroughly investigated after the war and proved to be untrue.

It's simply amazing what you can con people into believing provided you repeat it often enough and in a very shrill voice

by PAstor NeuMurphy Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:59

In Ireland, they came first for Some People I Didn't Agree With, and I didn’t speak up because I Didn't Agree With Those Awful People,
And then they came first for Some Other People I Didn't Agree With, and I didn’t speak up because I didn't like the way they spoke,
And then they came first for Some Other, Other People Whom I Didn't Know Much About, and I didn’t speak up because everyone told me that they were simply despicable, beyond redemption, I refused to question that assumption,
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

by Suin Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:35

Once again, Tomeile.

UCC has a right to invite whosoever it wishes. I am not in the UCC SU and have no hand act or part in choosing it's list of guest-speakers. If I was the person who made these decisions I would have invited someone more interesting and less toxic than Irving. But I am not.

however, Irving has a right to speak without fear of violence or intimidation, irrespective of his personal qualities or point of view - both of which I consider obnoxious.

As for Revisionist. The Nazis designed and carried out the murder of six-million european Jews during the course of WWII. All your rambling nonsense about soap does nothing to undermine this essential fact verified by the work of countless historians and the documentation left behind by the Nazis themselves. The motivation for the atrocity is clear from the pages of Mein Kampf. Its acknowlegement is evidenced by Hitler's last will and testament to the German people.

by Me Mon Mar 03, 2008 21:33

The Nazis designed and carried out the murder of six-million european Jews during the course of WWII. All your rambling nonsense about soap does nothing to undermine this essential fact verified by the work of countless historians and the documentation left behind by the Nazis themselves. The motivation for the atrocity is clear from the pages of Mein Kampf. Its acknowlegement is evidenced by Hitler's last will and testament to the German people.

I never denied any of that, you appear to have a problem understanding what I am saying.

When people tell me lies I begin to wonder at their motivation for doing so. This leads me to ask questions. Under 'Holocaust denial' legislation the mere act of 'question asking' itself becomes illegal. Once the principle is established that 'question asking' is illegal, how long before this legal principle is extended to cover other areas (more legitimate, in your opinion) of academic research?

What if the act of questioning the rationale and legitimacy of 'The War On Terror' were declared illegal?

I personally don't want to live in world where no one is allowed question the 'official' version of events.

Do you?

No matter how odious I may find Mr Irving's methods and motivations I still find myself having to support his right to do so if I expect to have the same right myself.

by tomeile Mon Mar 03, 2008 21:44

"Irving has a right to speak without fear of violence or intimidation, irrespective of his personal qualities or point of view - both of which I consider obnoxious."
I most certainly appreciate your spirited defence of free speech Cuin - it's an issue I feel strongly about myself .But it's not the point I raised . Irving has no right to a platform for his views and that's what the UCC soc is giving him . Are they entitled to invite him ? Yes they are : they have been given that entitlement by the college authorities presumably . But they are not obliged to invite him , or obliged to give him a platform for his poisonous views anymore than ,say ,the Irish Times is or indymedia ireland .
Would you not ,out of respect for the millions who died at the hands of the nazis , urge the UCC society to rescind their invitation ?

by Billy Tue Mar 04, 2008 05:21

This time round the pugilistic anti-fascists target a silly oldtimer like David Irving, whose reputation as a historian has been exploded by members of the academic research community in Britain and elsewhere. What I worry about is what happens next time round - what happens when the organised pugilists decide to target individuals whose political and cultural views they disagree with, even if these views have nothing to do with Jews, Gypsies, Arabs and other endangered ethno-religious groups.

If they turn their antidebating skills against anybody they choose to target... society goes down a slippery slope.

by gurggle Tue Mar 04, 2008 09:43

He's barred from several states & together with Richard Mugabe & the UN "list of terrorists" members tops the list of personae non grata . The first (& last) time he spoke to university students was at Oxford University on November 24th 2007 where he was billed as a controversial historian sharing a platform with a neoNazi.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/25/religion.highe...ation

March 2007 as Star Nazi he spoke to a far-right rally in Hungary. As part of events which were reported here & on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6453183.stm

Last year he was to speak at a bookshop in my city. We put it this way - "it's either no platform or no bookshop". the local minister of the interior, himself a marxist-ecologist finally pulled the plug. Some of the Nazi faithful who wanted to hear him speak have since been arrested for attacking our local synagogue. There are numerous people who might properly take a freedom of speech debate to interesting places. It need not be Freedom of Extreme Hate Speech .

I'd suggest Helen Steel and David Moris the "McLibel" duo whose much-publicized trial, widely known as the ’McLibel’ case, lasted 313 court days and was the longest in English history leading to them being ordered to pay damages of 40,000 British pounds (US$71,000) and 36,000 British pounds (US$64,000), respectively, for handing out leaflets attacking the company’s working practices and policies in 1997. A decision which was overruled by the European court of Human Rights Feb. 15 2005. The EHCR ruled that the two activists had not received a fair trial in Britain. & that their rights to free speech had been trampled on, effectively muzzling as well as bankrupting them. The Strasbourg, France-based court ruled that David Morris and Helen Steel should have received legal aid from the British government. It awarded them US$25,934 and US$19,450.5, respectively.

______________________________________

Shame on UCC. Let them know.
no platform.........

by Dublin Socialist SP (personal capacity) - SP Tue Mar 04, 2008 23:33

There seems to be a number of lines of argument in the "Yes - he should be allowed to speak" camp. Firstly, there are those who appear, rather than defending the abhorrent views views of Irving, are defending what they perceive as an attack on free speech. Those genuine commentators above, I can understand where they are coming from. The question of freedom of speech is not to be lightly or flippantly dealt with or dismissed, so much so given its limited existance.

Then there are those who think freedom of speech is a wonderful thing that everyone receives along with their birth certificate, that it has always existed, or was graciously granted by some enlightened politician years ago. Rights, like the ones you and I enjoy on daily basis, were FOUGHT for. Heroic people, pioneers of the socialist, trade union and womens' movement fought and in some cases died for those freedoms and rights. And we don't forget them easily. That is why we defend them so resolutely from those who would seek to use them to destroy them. Freedom of speech doesn't begin and end with debate or an exchange of ideas, or a harmless, "well, we'll agree to disagree" conclusion. That might be YOUR opinion. For the fascist he will gladly and quietly sit there through your brave denunciations from the floor of the lecture theatre and ignore you and the 99% of others in the audience who disagree with him. He will sit there with a pleasant smile that hides his real intent and he will look to the 1%, who are open to his ideas, he will look to see if they can be recruited. And when you have gone home, content in the fact that you certainly gave a nasty Nazi piece of your mind, he will arrange to meet that new person, to consolidate him, to connect him to others in the area of a similar persuasion and they will bide their time, slowly building until they are strong and brave enough to don a balaclava and baseball bat and set upon some immigrant, or homosexual. Will you be there to defend the victim? What about THEIR democratic rights? Perhaps you will attend some candle lit vigil after the event.

Debate, arguments and discussion reflect real developments in a real world. The idea put forward by some, I would say, naive, commentators above - that Irving will come, put forward his disgusting views, be destroyed (in argument) by some dusty professer of history and we'll all go home happy with that - is grossly naive and irresponsible. In reality that reflects how middle class liberals approach issues in society - its enough to engage in polite discussion and debate (with any one) til the cows come home, rather than ever actually DOING anything. You wish for immigrants, socialists, trade unionists, homosexuals etc to put aside THEIR safety and THEIR democratic rights so you can satisfy your hobby of polite debate by crushing the brutal nazi with words while his mates crush the former with fists, bottles and boots.

What gives the left, anti-fascist activists and true defenders of democratic rights, the right to deny fascists the opportunity to get organised? The fact that it won't be you sweeping up the glass after an immigrant hostel attack, or organising a workers defence force to protect workers and minorities from physical attack. Socialists and trade unionists are well aware of the precious nature of democratic rights because we fought for them, and those who sacrificed so much before us fought for them - the right to vote, the right to organise, the right to combine, and the right to free speech. We are not prepared to see them go up in the smoke of a second holocaust. The quote from Hitler above shows what is necessary. The lessons of cable street apply today.

All those who genuinely wish to defend our democratic rights, not only for today, but also for tomorrow, should come and join the protest. I for one will be there.

by Margaret O'Regan - SWP Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:16

As a Cork City resident, I will attend the protest if it becomes necessary, should the invitation to Irving not be withdrawn in the meantime.

As a resident, I feel that I have ownership over my town and my university. The physical structure and infrastructure of this institution was and is built by the labour of our forefathers and us. It was and is run by the labour of our forefathers and us. We own it. It behoves us not to let this respectable third level university be used to give a platform to any nazi, and, in particular, Irving - for the third time. We have a vested interest and an obligation to see to it that Irving be prevented from speaking.

Irving and his ilk crave respectability, and a successful outcome for him will make his next outing easier. The onus is on us as residents and students and all interested parties to mobilise on Monday night.

At present, in Cork, we have a colourful and fun mixture of ethnicity and nationalities. The new Irish are very welcome here, and, again as a resident, I will not stand for any racism or scapegoating of anyone who is different for any reason in this town or anywhere. The new Irish, like the Irish all over the world, are endeavouring to make a decent living for themselves and their families. If the Irvings of this world had their way, the new Irish would be treated as sub-human. This is against the interests of all working people, and is the reason why workers, residents, students and others should turn out in their numbers on this very important protest.

by Gadfly Thu Mar 06, 2008 05:32

For the Irving haters the free speech debate is a hoax. Its actual purpose is the promotion of Fascist propaganda, and the real topic; the Holocaust and its denial. The Nazis had a policy of persecution and the millions of people who died fighting them and whose lives were irrevocably damaged by the sacrifice – were the people who brought about the end to that persecution and the freeing of the concentration camps. Everyone in Eire knew of the atrocities but, apart from some very brave (40,000 or so) exceptions, the country chose not to fight alongside the Allies. So who were the true deniers?

by emo - ucc Thu Mar 06, 2008 21:53

EXCUSE ME? WHO ARE YOU?

We have the right to protest whoever we like - that is OUR free speech. Peaceful protest is OUR right, whether you respect that or not.
I'm a proud Irishman, I'm proud of my people and my culture, and I'm not going to stand by and let lizard tongued liars into my university for no good reason without challenging them.

So, what's next, you spotty little philosophs? Getting a nazi to talk about free speech is like asking your dog to protest against bottom-sniffing. This snotty old bore is only famous because he's a nazi. So, if he speaks, why shouldn't I? Of course I should, and I WILL and I WILL SHOUT until I am hoarse, believe me. Well, what can I say? College is not just full of smart people, there are many high achieving idiots whose basic logical thinking won't allow them to realise that people outside the door have a voice as well, and we will, yes we WILL make our voice known. If you make a platform for this waster, we will make our own counter platform. "But Daddy... it's just about free speech!", they whine.. ...Whose free speech is it about? Just yours is it? So, where is the other side of the argument? Oh yeah,..now I remember.... they're f-cking DEAD!!! All 6 million of them.

Now, I'm a capitalist, but there are some issues that I feel passionately about with which I will stand with the socialists because they're the only ones protesting. The idea of facism has the power to rip a country apart from the inside. It's base, it's gross, it's obscene, dirty and perverted. This monkey will draw all his nazi fans down with him, even maybe some loyalist bigmen and it will put our international students in danger and discomfort, since they won't be able to get in and out of the library or the science building. This nazi is a hero to the Combat-18 muppets and their UFF paramilitary friends who have bombed us before and may do so again. Why should my fees go to pay for this skinhead holiday? Is David Irving being paid by UCC for this? I totally, absolutely object. This is not a case of Godwin's law, this is a real live squirmy little nazi.

We have absolutely every right to be angry, and if you don't have the bollocks to wake up and smell the coffee, then FlJCK YOU TOO.

by Student Fri Mar 07, 2008 09:37

Where is the other side of the debate you ask.

Hrmmm.....

Perhaps on the opposition benches in the debate? You want your vice to be heard and FCUK THE PHILOSOPHY SOC!!! Yea, rock on man, oh also, your voice does matter, because anyone can speak.

Just to point out that one of the dangerous things that Nazis do (apart of course from stopping people they disagree with expressing their opinion) is buying into steryiotypes. So all of you who give out about "spotty" "rich" "baby barristers" would probobly like to have a good hard look in the mirror and realise that you know nothing about these people, neither do I, but seriously guys, chill out and lay off.

by Dave Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:30

Lets establish some ground rules. Yes, UCC has the right to invite David Irving. Yes, and people have the right to organise protests against the man in reponse. However, in the course of these actions has anyone got the right to intimidate? Rather than just protest wouldn't the anti Irving people physically stop the event if they could?

You see this is the essential difference between legitimate protest and the fascist mob mentality.

Legitimate peaceful protest - YES. Mob imtimidation would be reminiscent of the brownshirts in 1930s Germany.

by UCC student Sat Mar 08, 2008 00:45

Well isn't this fantastic, instead of taking on a world class debater he goes up against a historian and a talk show host. I wonder how he could have been stopped form interrupting? perhaps by having a chair, or perhaps rules or an audience that wouldn't take it. I wonder where such a magical forum for discussion might exist?

Congratulations.

by Starkadder Sat Mar 08, 2008 00:57

According to this website, Irving has cancelled his appearance at UCC.

http://www.uccphilosoph.com/internal/index.php?option=c...b_pdf

Possibly because RTE were stupid enough to give him a nationwide platform.

by Luis Iñarra Sat Mar 08, 2008 06:48 luisinarra at prodigy dot net dot mx

David Irving has every right to attend an invitation at the UCC, and the same for the UCC to invite anyone they want. On the other hand Mr. Irving has been doing serious research on a subject that in my case, is not completely known except for misguided newspapers and TV series.
I can understand that the jews, americans and british are somewhat upset about Mr. Irving speech, since the truth has been manipulated by them for the last 70 years and his knowledge is opening serious cracks in that sort of bunker.
Anyway, I just hope the people at the UCC have a very good time next Monday, hoping you can publish what happened there.
Than you.

Luis

by Ray Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:08

Irvings attendance at the University had been cancelled. It is clear that this has happened because of the threat of violence and intimidation. According to Irving's website he will be speaking elsewhere in Cork and that location is secret.

I am not sure whether i fully understand the intentions of the anti-Irving protestors.....

a) Is the problem that he was due to talk at a public location (i.e. University)?

b) If he was booked to speak at a private location (i.e. Pub, Hotel) would they have sought to have this stopped too?

If the answer is b), then it seems that some people want to curtail Irvings rights to free association and free expression. In that case how
far have we come since 1930s Germany?

by Mark C Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:44

I agree Irving has a RIGHT to speak in UCC. I agree everyone has a RIGHT to protest (let their voice be heard) against him. I agree it is GOOD to hear the views of those we may not agree with so that we can expose them for the liars they are.

But, having been on The Right Hook on Thursday, The Late Late Show on Friday, and an extended interview with him on The Wide Angle tomorrow morning, hasn't he been given enough space to air his views? He does not need the platform of UCC on Monday night also.

Someone above commented that he was put up against a talk-show host and an historian instead of a world class debated. GOOD. I'd rather see him up against an historian that a debater. I''m interested in history and historical analysis, not style over substance.

Regarding what Irving said on The Late Late Show, I think he came across as a total hypocrite (albeit a subtle one (at times)). How can he say something along the lines that we don't have the historical documents to prove what is promoted as the official history of the holocaust and at the same time say that he would guess that maybe Hitler said something like, "Himmler, do what you have to do but don't tell me about it". Isn't he, here, falling in to the same type of surmising that he accuses his enemies of? Or when he argued that the destruction of the Jews was not genocide as it was not systematic/systemic and then say that he would guess that it happened at the outskirts of the regime.

Mr Irving, you cannot say that history is being manufactured and then GUESS GUESS GUESS. I am glad you are not speaking at UCC - even if I do support your right to speak there.

Mark.

by ucc student Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:43

I'm sorry but he quite clearly had the best of it last night. He was arguing that we had evidence as far up as goebels but not to Hitler. He also argued that if it was systemic then it was not Hitler who made it so. You would have to be looking at it with some very rose tinted glasses to say that he came off sounding bad.

Firstly, this is not what he has said on previous occasions, there is quite a bit of reason that people call him anti-semetic and an awful man. He can get away with looking like an angel when he has a 10 minute session on the late late show. He would not have gotten away with it in a 2 hour grilling at a university in the presence of an audience full of UCC staff and people who have won awards for arguing (not just on style but being able to use their research well as opposed to a UCD historian who clearly can't). A university setting was and still is, badly needed to challenge his views properly.

by michael doocey Sat Mar 08, 2008 13:17

christopher hitchens made an interesting contribution to this debate a while back

links here:

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUphTYPMB4o&feature=related

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jnD4Mc3VUw&feature=related

by student Sat Mar 08, 2008 15:02

this is the statement the Philosoph sent to the press.

"Statement of the UCC Philosophical Society following our inability to accommodate Mr Irving on Monday the tenth

The free speech debate the Philosophical Society intended to have has always been about free speech, not about the holocaust, or Mr Irving’s views specifically. Unfortunately, we are unable to accommodate Mr Irving on this occasion, despite titanic efforts by our committee, due to a number of factors.

A campaign of intimidation has been run by individuals opposed to Mr. Irving’s visit, against our members, the meeting, and indeed Mr. Irving himself. Threats of violence have been made, which we had to take very seriously. This, in addition to pressure from the Gardai and lack of support from elements within the college, has made Mr. Irving’s attendance at our debate impossible.

The debate is, as has been stated numerous times, still going ahead. The motion “That this house believes free speech should be free from restraint” remains unchanged. We can now release that the location of the debate is Boole Four in UCC and it will begin at eight. Socialist Party Councillor Mick Barry, a vocal opponent of our decision to invite Mr. Irving has now agreed to speak in opposition to the motion and to defend the so called “Stop Irving Campaign.”

We would encourage all those who had intended to attend the meeting to still do so, and to voice their opinions on the matter regardless. We would also invite those who opposed Mr. Irving being provided a platform to come and debate the issue in his absence.

The Philosophical Society’s intention has always been to facilitate debate. Due to the massive pressure put on us by violent thugs this became a national issue and the debate was held on RTE in front of a million people rather than the two hundred we had originally intended. Our aim is to encourage debate, we succeeded in that aim, ironically thanks to those opposed to Irving’s invitation. We consider this a victory and we encourage all sides to attend the debate on Monday to discuss the issue of free speech. "

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Sat Mar 08, 2008 19:04

The above press statement from the UCC Philosophical Society is the latest attempt by that organisation to "spin" and create the myth that they cancelled their invitation to the fascist David Irving "due to the massive pressure put on us by violent thugs".
Ross Frennet, auditor of the Philosophical Society has consistently claimed that officials of that college society and himself were subject to threats and intimidation. The above statement claims that "A campaign of intimidation has been run by individuals opposed to Mr. Irving’s visit, against our members, the meeting, and indeed Mr. Irving himself". If, Ross Frennet or other officials of the Philosophical were subject to threats or intimidation then there is an onus on them to openly state the nature of the threats and or the intimidation which they claim occurred. As it stands they have made unsubstantiated claims against "individuals opposed to Mr. Irving’s visit".
The decision by the Philosophical Society to withdraw its invitation to the fascist Irving was not based on it being subject to a campaign of threats and intimidation. This decision resulted from a well organised campaign of opposition to the Philosophical Society’s irresponsible and infantile decision to invite one of the world’s most notorious fascists to UCC.
The invitation to Irving was withdrawn because the Philosophical Society, the gardai and UCC authorities realised that once again Irving’s presence would attract a massive protest by those who abhor all that he stands for.
The campaign by the political parties, groups and individuals who opposed David Irving’s right to a platform in UCC focused on exposing a further myth that the Philosophical Society have attempted to create – that this was an issue that centred on the right to free speech.
The Philosophical Society have aided and abetted David Irving in his attempt to portray himself as a victim of undemocratic anti-fascists and "thugs" who unjustly want to silence him. Anti-Irving campaigners have succeeded in exposing him to many as a fascist and a Neo-Nazi organiser. He is not the victim. Irving is a Nazi who has the blood of many victims on his hands – the victims of the fascist thugs that he has assisted in organising across Europe and the United States. Thugs who have viciously beaten and murdered blacks, asians, gays, migrants, and political opponents.
The Philosophical Society, along with the Late Late Show have given David Irving the opportunity to falsely portray himself as simply an historian who is at odds with mainstream academia. The Philosoph and the Late Late Show stand condemned for this, for giving succour and support to this degenerate fascist.
We warned that David Irving was coming to Ireland to meet and assist Irish fascists. That he would use his visit to recruit new people to fascism and to Irish fascist organisations. This is exactly what has happened. Irving even boasted in the Irish Times that such a meeting was being held Cork. Evidence exists that similar meetings will take place in Dublin and Belfast.
The organisers of the Philosophical Society should hold their heads in shame that they have facilitated Irving in his task. If there are attacks on migrants, asylum seekers or other minorities by Irish fascists and racists will the Philosoph officers be there to defend the victims with their witty repartee and clever debating skills?
The Philosophical Society is trying to claim they have achieved some sort of victory. On three occasions in the last 15 years the Philosophical Society has attempted to give David Irving a platform from which to spew his fascist propaganda. Three times they have failed. On a further occasion they attempted to bring the fascist BNP youth organiser Tony Wentworth (convicted of racist assaults), to speak and they failed.
Ross Frennet and the officers of the Philosophical Society need to wake up – Irish society has no need of you to enlighten it in relation to democracy or free speech. On the contrary you need to answer the charge that as the officers of a college Society you have aided and abetted the development of fascist organisations and the spreading of fascist ideas in Ireland!

by ucc student Sat Mar 08, 2008 19:30

Ah yes propaganda. Its terrible when people resort to that, isn't it.

UCC authorities and the gardai supported the invitation last time he came and only withdrew their support when people were injured by protesters trying to force their way in. That is documented. That is violence. You are lying if you deny it. It's clear that both those organisations were fully aware that the protesters consisted of a small minority and only withdrew their support when there was a threat to people from protesters.

So is it likely that it's different this time. I sincerely doubt that they somehow woke up to the "danger" that Irving presented. I think it far more likely that they had reason to believe something like that was going to happen again or worse.

I've heard it argued on this board that the meeting should have been canceled because it was drawing hate filled, violent people. You might want to ask yourselves what kind of people you have attracted and are attracting to this town.

by Unbelievable Sat Mar 08, 2008 22:54

Are you suggesting that the Philosophical society are lying about the threats they recieved in order to cancel the debate? If you are then you are wrong and it is a horrible thing to suggest!
Froom what i understand their statement is perfectly reasonable, they were being threatened and had to call off the meeting for security reasons. They should NOT be ashamed of themselves whatsoever! And an attempt to blame them for any attacks in the future on people? How can you possibly say such things? If people are atacked then it is the attackers who are at fault! You cannot blame a student society for the existence of thugs and racists.
And even if the protesters think they have the victory here for the meeting being called off they are sadly mistaken. I was sitting at home, I watched the Late Late show as did about a million other people who all heard Irving speak. So if they wanted a debate on free speech to happen and for people to hear it then thye do win. In a meeting i assume there couldn't be more that 200 present maybe 300 but because of their attempts to have the debate, the protestors attempt to thwart it, Irving got to speak to a million people on national television.
To me it sounds like they have the victory here....

by UCC Philosoph Sun Mar 09, 2008 02:01

Stephen is more than welcome to come along on Monday and express his thoughts on the matter, as is everyone on this forum whatever view they hold.
The way I understand it his evining has just free'd up...

Why would we fake threats in order to cancel the debate we wanted to hold...?

by C. Lalor Sun Mar 09, 2008 05:06

At the end of Camus' The Plague the rats scuttle back down into the sewer.

By inviting Irving to speak the U.C.C Philosophical Society is giving legitimacy to a bearer of the nazi plague.

People of goodwill should ensure that the rats stay where they belong-in the sewer.

by Seán Ryan Sun Mar 09, 2008 15:49

If the debate was going to be about free speech - I wonder if someone would clarify the position. Was it Irving who was going to argue against free speech or U.C.C.?

by tomeile Sun Mar 09, 2008 16:05

Arturo Ui was the gangster who represented Hitler in Bertolt Brecht’s play ,The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui .
The play ends with the line .........
“The beast is dead ,but the bitch that gave birth to him is coming into heat again “

That’s why the likes of Irving have to be opposed . The circle he represents consider the work of Hitler unfinished business .Ten years ago we were told that history had ended ; back then a fascist resurgence would have been considered out of the question . Last week an American president officially endorsed torture.

Muslims who are under the illusion that Irving’s attempt to rehabilitate the Holocaust puts him on the anti-zioinist side should think about last week's speech by Israel’s deputy defence minister ,Matan Vilnai , and take note of what Vilnai threatened Palestinians with .

by KurtB Sun Mar 09, 2008 16:33

Stephen Boyd says “there is an onus on them to openly state the nature of the threats and or the intimidation which they claim occurred “
Stephen, there is an onus on you to prove that Irving “has the blood of many victims on his hands – the victims of the fascist thugs that he has assisted in organizing across Europe and the United States. Thugs who have viciously beaten and murdered blacks, Asians, gays, migrants, and political opponents.”
Not your opinion Steve, actionable proof.

by Anti Irving Sun Mar 09, 2008 20:22

KurtB, what Stephen Boyd said was - "Irving is a Nazi who has the blood of many victims on his hands – the victims of the fascist thugs that he has assisted in organising across Europe and the United States. Thugs who have viciously beaten and murdered blacks, asians, gays, migrants, and political opponents."

There is plenty of evidence that proves that Irving has assisted fascist organisations to build and grow and plenty of evidence that these thugs are guilty of horrific crimes including murder.