British historian David Irving has had his conviction for denying the Holocaust upheld by the Austrian Supreme Court. But another court has yet to rule on his appeal against a three-year jail term, which he is serving in Vienna.
The 68-year-old was imprisoned after pleading guilty at a one-day trial in Vienna on 20 February. During the trial, Mr Irving said he now believed Jewish people had been gassed during World War II. He had previously admitted in court that in 1989, he denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. The historian was also on trial for claiming the November 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, when Nazis attacked and torched thousands of Jewish businesses and synagogues, was not the work of Nazis but of others who had dressed up as stormtroopers.
He said Adolf Hitler had attempted to protect the Jews. Mr Irving was found guilty by an eight-person jury. The second ruling, at a regional tribunal, is not expected for at least two months.
More on this for German-readers in Die Welt. Only last week, the nutzis were predicting his early release and confidence that the verdict would be overturned. It seems they got it wrong.
This blog's position is very simple: Irving should have been convicted, but given a suspended sentence and booted out of the country. Whatever one thinks of the Austrian law, Irving was in violation of it. Whether the appeals court ruling on his sentence will decide that enough time has been served, or follow the prosecution in seeking an increase in the sentence, remains to be seen.
My main concern is that if he is freed by the Austrian court, he will parade it as a triumph for Holocaust revision over the "Holohoax."
ReplyDeleteHowever, if he stays in jail, he continues to be a martyr for "free speech."
Irving is a "Teflon victim." He ges to be the poor little victim of vast and nefarious conspiracies to destroy him...but emerges unscathed every time.
Yes, Irving was declared bankrupt, which has impeded his nuisance lawsuits against Gitta Sereny, Deborah Lipstadt, and even Emory University(!)
ReplyDeleteHe sued the latter for publishing the contents of the defense reports in his libel case, saying they violated his copyrights and privacy. Emory, having a budget, had its counsel fire back with a harsh note that stressed three points:
1. Emory had every right to publish defense reports from an adjuticated public trial.
2. Irving could not sue anybody without his trustee's permission.
3. If Irving did sue, Emory would countersue to get their costs of defending that frivolous and malicious lawsuit back.
Amazingly, Irving put all that on his web page, before he went in the slammer.
I would also note that he's still suing Deborah Lipstadt...now he's claiming harassment in that she dropped her demand for his money, but only after bankrupting him.
But your point is accurate and well-taken...with Irving in the can, his assets held by a trustee, he can't sue anybody without permission, and he's lost the Mayfair flat (which was mortgaged six times over, I'm told).
My comment on him being the "Teflon victim" was on how he still is able to raise funds, attend conferences, fly first class, keep up his web page, and so on. Yet he is constantly claiming that he is the victim of a worldwide conspiracy that is out to destroy him and his life, even talking about assassination attempts. Yet they never happen. But he still plays the victim.
Even so, your point is well-taken, and I agree with it. My comment above is not a criticism, just some additional observations.
I think the best comment on Irving and his current condition was reading that his little daughter, who got to hear that awful racist ditty, was reading "The Diary of Anne Frank" when her mother was being interviewed by a reporter when Irving was sentenced. The kid is making a show of rejecting her father's ideology.