Posted on 02/20/2006 10:52:30 AM PST by Jeremiah2911
Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison, even after conceding he wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived in court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving told the court before his sentencing, at which he faced up to 10 years in prison.
He also expressed sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."
But he insisted he never wrote a book about the Holocaust, which he called "just a fragment of my area of interest."
"In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis," testified Irving, who has written nearly 30 books.
The court said Irving had three days to appeal his sentence. His lawyer did not immediately say whether he planned to do so.
Irving, 67, has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews. He has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
b) He should not be jailed for having an incorrect, even stupid, opinion.
Agreed on both counts.
and c) He's no "right-winger"
a) He's wrong.
b) He should not be jailed for having an incorrect, even stupid, opinion.
Ditto your post!
Right wing is obviously being equated with Nazi here.
No matter how repugnant or misguided they are, I can't wrap my head around the idea of putting people in prison for the words and thoughts they publish in books.
I have no great sympathy for Nazi lovers and Holocaust deniers. But giving someone three years in jail for expressing an opinion is ludicrous. Especially when these same judges are letting known Muslim terrorists and killers out of jail free.
Who is more likely to go out and kill more Jews? A nitwitted British historian or a Muslim terrorist?
What's next ... a law saying you can't insult Mohammed?
Oh? Although I mostly disagree with them, I can easily understand why Europeans would be leery of anybody who even hints that the Nazi past wasn't fully as bad as it's been made out to be for all these years. One gets the strong sense that the underpinnings of that sort of nationalism are still there.
And now to deal with that word "mostly" -- I don't have much problem with putting in jail those who are actively seditious. Irving may or may not fit that description -- I really don't know, having not paid any attention to him. But certainly he could be seen as promoting sedition with this sort of thing.
So, should we tell Austria about the Irannian president?
I agree...and they do this in Germany, as well. In fact, I think I recall a case about a man who was jailed for teaching his dog to raise his paw after repeating "heil Hitler."
great observation.
-- (probably falsely) attributed to Voltaire
Actually, yes.
Was Rachel Corrie ...
... a right-winger too?
ML/NJ
I'm at a loss to understand why no one gets it right. Either I'm the only sane person, or I'm the only crazy person. In the US, holocaust deniers who have tenure keep their jobs on the basis of academic freedom. Apparently, in Europe, people go to jail for saying things the state doesn't like. It seems to me that no amount of academic freedom excuses the disemination of provably wrong, incorrect information. Professors routinely doing this should lose their jobs, tenured or not. On the other hand, being wrong about historical fact should not be illegal.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.