Vrijheid van meningsuiting: Holocaust-ontkenner Irving voor rechter

[Coolassprov MC]

Vrijheid van meningsuiting: Holocaust-ontkenner Irving voor rechter
maandag 20 februari 2006
WENEN (ANP) - De omstreden Britse historicus David Irving moet zich maandag voor een rechtbank in Wenen verantwoorden wegens het openlijk in twijfel trekken van de Holocaust. Irving werd al eens eerder veroordeeld voor een dergelijk vergrijp in Oostenrijk.

Hij wordt door het Oostenrijkse Openbaar Ministerie ervan beschuldigd zestien jaar geleden verscheidene voordrachten te hebben gehouden waarin hij het bestaan van de gaskamers in vernietigingskampen in nazi-Duitsland ontkende.
Mocht hij wederom schuldig worden bevonden, wacht hem een lange gevangenisstraf. De Oostenrijkse politie arresteerde de 67-jarige historicus, bekend van verscheidene lovende biografieën over Adolf Hitler, in november. Waarnemers verwachten dat het OM een makkelijk zaak zal hebben en rekenen op een kort proces.

[gh.wille]

Geplaatst door Coolassprov MC


Doodzonde van het geld wat dit proces gaat kosten (de Oostenrijkse burger draait op voor de kosten)je hoeft echt geen rechten gestudeerd te hebben om deze Meneer Irving toch binnen een uur vrij te pleitten.
Het is normaal in bijna elk land verboden om een ''GEESTIGE ZIEKE "te veroordelen .
:D

[Coolassprov MC]

David Irving: does not need sympathy. (even if one supports no restrictions on freedom of speech). I had made a statement about Nazi "historian" David Irving a while back. A reader (sympathetic to Irving?) wrote that I am following the conventional wisdom about Irving. I never follow conventional wisdom or crowds on any matter, especially the evaluation of books. I in fact read most (if not all) of David Irving's books (from Hitler's War to the Destruction of Dresden to his biographies of Goring and of Goebbels) and reached a firm conclusion that he is a Nazi anti-Semite. You can clearly see that in his biography of Geobbels. And Irving is dangerous: because his books are full of documentation and primary sources and you have to dig deeper to realize that he clearly selects those facts that are in favor of his thesis and ignores those facts that are contrary to his Nazi agenda, especially his claim of Hitler's "innocence" as far as the Holocaust is concerned. (Read here the book Denying the Holocaust by D. Lipstadt). And his speeches and interviews outside of his books only implicates him further. Why am I writing this? Because looking at Arabic newspapers and watching Arab news, I am rather disturbed by the coverage of the verdict on Irving. It is not blatantly sympathetic to Irving, but he is portrayed as a victim of some pro-Israeli forces. I am also disturbed to read this: "An Observer investigation in 2002 found that Irving was backed by an international network of supporters, including a Saudi prince and a former Nazi U-boat commander." The Palestinian cause is too precious to allow Nazi anti-Semites to infiltrate our ranks. They should be rejected from the pro-Palestinian movement. And not every target of ADL should be seen as a friend of the Palestinian cause. Good night.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714470,00.html


The resistible rise of the historian who rejected plain facts

Duncan Campbell
Tuesday February 21, 2006
The Guardian


David Irving's court appearance in Vienna is the latest in a long line of legal battles in which the far-right historian has been involved stretching back almost 40 years. Throughout this time, he has portrayed himself as a victim of smear tactics who is seeking to bring to light historical truths, while his opponents and critics see him as a would-be martyr cynically using the arguments of free speech to peddle myths to appreciative extremist audiences.