David Irving arrested in Austria

[Darat]

To get back on track - has anyone done any further research into the charges? I admit I haven't but from the article the Austrian charges are not about a matter of free-speech.

I would have thought that most countries have laws against treason and laws about inciting other people to commit crimes? (Albeit that Austria and Germany may have more specific definitions then other countries.)

To argue that someone should be allowed to revive original Nazism is to argue that it is wrong for a state to prevent people trying to harm or destroy the state by illegal means and that it is wrong for society to prevent people from trying to illegally harm and even kill other legal citizens of that and other states. Obviously this depends on what the legislation he has been charged under actually says but the word "revival" would indicate it is someone actively trying to resurrect in Austria today a system of concentration camps and the mass murder of citizens of Austria and other countries. (Because that is what a revival of Nazism would mean.)

Out of curiosity I wonder when does the Austrian and German legislation in question date back to? Was it part of the imposed legislative changes forced upon the Germans and Austrians after the second world war by the Allies?

 

[Gurdur]

"It is error alone which needs the support of government," Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia. "Truth can stand by itself."

Which may sound lovely in theory, but is ridiculous in practice. Otherwise WW2 would never have been needed. Like that totally off-the-wall post before, Miss Manners is not an adequate defence against stormtroopers. Empty posturing does not help in the real world.

Now let's look at the other major fallacy here, since this lies at the very basis of this position:
Just what is "truth" supposed to be here? You should know by now there is no such thing as objective truth when it comes to values; Naziism is not "untrue", it's simply immoral (at least by my own ethics).

Or, if he is too American to hold a legitimate viewpoint,

Don't be silly and try not to confuse me with other posters --- it was a poster who made a similar defence as yours, Sackett, who claims all "Europeans" think one way and all Americans think one way -- I personally would never be so silly as to believe such obviously untrue rubbish.
IOW; give up the strawman. No-one is being anti-American here, and if you can't handle skepticism, thats your own problem.

What is the danger in making expression of a point of view or advocacy of it unlawful?

Srebenica, Rwanda, KKK, etc. I guess you might have heard of some of these real-life problems?

It is almost Darwinian -- the struggle not only helps to ensure that the strongest ideas flourish over time, but that they remain vigorous by continually defeating incorrect viewpoints.

Relying on some weird version of Social Darwinism applied to ideas won't help -- the fallacy of thinking some POV's are "untrue" has already been detailed.

. Even if a suppressed opinion is completely false, free expression can still be beneficial.

Oh puh-leeeze, so they should teach Intelligent Design and racism in schools then?
This assertion is akin to saying you must have someone around simply to give every opposing POV there is. Impractical and unnecessary. Maybe Naziism or overly making an impractical fetish of "unlimited free speech" (i.e. allowing neonazis to rant) simply lost out in the "Darwinian" struggle?

Without the ability to defeat the incorrect opinion in the open, there is an opportunity for it to flourish in the shadows.

Since it's been pointed out time and time again actual discussion goes on unhindered, more such rhetoric simply fails to deal with the point.

And I personally find any distinction between allowing "discussion" -- as long as no one is allowed to actually advocate a contrary position -- and censorship to be a distinction with no real difference. .

Too bad for you, since it's quite a commonly accepted legal definition, one that coincidentally applies to the libel case Irving lost, and is a real distinction very much alive in practice, quite intuitively clear to most.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

To return to the topic,I received the following passage from a jewish friend. He disagreed with me in certain points and I find his point of view interesting.

Cleopatra - I think it hinges on what he is actually been charged for (and of course if he is guilty of those charges).

There is clear difference (to me anyway) in someone being prevented from saying "Nazi's weren't that bad they've just had a bad press" (my own view is that they should be allowed to say that) and taking steps to revive the policies that would directly result in the murder of many people.

With my knowledge of him I have to say that I consider the likelihood of him participating in something to revive the Nazi party seems a bit remote so I am leaning toward this being a suppression of his ability to talk about his subject area - but to confirm that I'd need more information. Do you know exactly what legislation he is being charged under and exactly what that deals with? (I have my suspicions that "revive" may, for the Austrians, cover speaking in positive terms about the polices and the outcomes of those policies of the Nazis.)

 

[Gurdur]

To argue that someone should be allowed to revive original Nazism is to argue that it is wrong for a state to prevent people trying to harm or destroy the state by illegal means and that it is wrong for society to prevent people from trying to illegally harm and even kill other legal citizens of that and other states.

Indeed.

Out of curiosity I wonder when does the Austrian and German legislation in question date back to? Was it part of the imposed legislative changes forced upon the Germans and Austrians after the second world war by the Allies?

No, not really. To explain part of the situation:
There is the Basic Law in Germany, for example, akin to a constitution, whcih states unchangeably that the basic rights of a citizen may not be violated in any way: it can and is interpreted that the basic righhts of a citizen include not having to listen to someone advocate openly killing the handicapped or killing all blacks.
However, such legal interpretation is very much ongoing and developing; again for example, there is a frankly neonazi political party in Germany who just manage by various tricks to skate under the laws --- they keep connections with the actual neonazis who like stormtrooping (rallies, violence etc.) but pretend not to; there is a constant watch on them simply because they do indeed try to break the law while appearing not to. BTW, despie being a legal party, they consistantly fail to get anywhere near five percent of the national vote. In former East Germany they are going on recruiting drives, and also seem to try image changes to become more fashionable, but without much success.

The law forced by the Allies on both Germany and Austria at the end of WW2 of course precludes open Nazis in government, but doesn't do much more than that at all (which is why Jörg Haider could be so successful in Styria and Austria nationally for a short time).

Much of the law is also affected by and developed in the wasve of extreme leftwing terrorism of the 1970's, the time of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, and further refined when neonaziism reared its ugly head at the end of the 80's and during the '90's.

Such law determines who may take part in elections, exactly what advocacy is not allowed (i.e. the DVU in Germany may make a few nasty noises against foreigners, closely watched, but not openly display portraits of Hitler or openly try to set up stormtrooper units), what is allowed and what not throughout areas of public speech.

Holocaust denial, for example, is a relatively new phenomenon, cropping up first in the '80s in any big way, as a result of American neonazis and then imported to the UK for a while (remember the National Front in Britain during the '80's; a great deal of money was sent by American neonazis to the last few German neonazis during that time and ongoing too). Laws on Hollocaust denial while being based on the constitutional law, mostly date from that time in the 1980's, the time when it became an acute question.

As for revivalism in Austria, I'm not too sure on the legal timeline there, sorry.

 

[CFLarsen]

With my knowledge of him I have to say that I consider the likelihood of him participating in something to revive the Nazi party seems a bit remote so I am leaning toward this being a suppression of his ability to talk about his subject area - but to confirm that I'd need more information.

I've seen footage of Irving ranting at an Alten Kameraden meeting. He wasn't exactly being critical of Hitler.

 

[BPSCG]

As a very rough paraphrase of Mills' point: Once no one is allowed to dissent against any given truth, it can no longer be counted on in the same way, because it does not regularly affirm and demonstrate that it is, in fact, true. Even if a suppressed opinion is completely false, free expression can still be beneficial. In the end, a person may believe an opinion is correct if and only if there exists the liberty to question, criticize, and investigate that opinion. Without the ability to defeat the incorrect opinion in the open, there is an opportunity for it to flourish in the shadows.

Accepting an idea as true without subjecting it to tests is called "faith." Those who believe that democracy - or any other form of government - is better than Naziism, should let Naziism's proponents to speak their peace.

Germans and Austrians are (I assume) free to argue for socialism and communism (which, lest we forget, was every bit as bloodthirsty as the Nazis, plus it isn't quite done yet) and aristocracy and every shade of socio-political belief from right-wing nutjob-ism to left-wing loonie-ism. The voters get to listen to the best each competing ideology has to offer, sift through the ideas, and buy the ones they like on election day.

But the case for democracy against the Nazis amounts to, "Shut up, you're wrong."

Which is why I ask - repeatedly - what bad thing would happen if Germans and Austrians were allowed to espouse Naziism, to actually run for office and print newspapers and make speeches, all saying, "We think Hitler was right, and here's why..."

 

[Gurdur]

I have to agree fully with CF larsen on this, Darat. Irving has often been to neonazi rallies around the world; in fact, that played a vital role in the cases made against him in his failed libel case in the UK, and why he was banned from Germany and Austria. Had he stuck to say some pretence of academia, it is very unlikely events would have piled up so much against him; it was his open frank advocation and agitation that made the big legal difference, whether in the judge's ruling against him in the UK libel case or in the bannings from the various countries.

More on the legal situation (from the Wikipedia):

1989 (8. Nov) wird vom Landesgericht Wien ein Haftbefehl (Verdacht auf Wiederbetätigung) ausgestellt.
1993 wurde Irving nach Straftaten im Zusammenhang mit Auftritten in München vom Landgericht München rechtskräftig verurteilt und von der Münchner Ausländerbehörde unbefristet aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ausgewiesen, das Urteil wurde 1996 vom Verwaltungsgericht bestätigt. Irving hat außerdem in Kanada, Australien, Südafrika, Italien, Österreich und Neuseeland Einreiseverbot.

In 1989 a warrant in Vienna was issued against him on the grounds of recidivist behaviour regarding his revivalism etc., and he is also banned from entering Canada, Australia, South Africa, Italy, Austria, Germany, and New Zeeland.

 

[richardm]

Which is why I ask - repeatedly - what bad thing would happen if Germans and Austrians were allowed to espouse Naziism, to actually run for office and print newspapers and make speeches, all saying, "We think Hitler was right, and here's why..."

I think the long and short of is that they already know what bad thing could happen if Nazis were to run for office, because they remember it from last time. That's enough for them to do everything they can to prevent it from happening again.

 

[BPSCG]

I think the long and short of is that they already know what bad thing could happen if Nazis were to run for office, because they remember it from last time. That's enough for them to do everything they can to prevent it from happening again.

Do you think so? I'd like to hear that from the Europeans. Because that really amounts to, "We're afraid that if we let the Nazis talk, we'd turn into Nazis - again."

I don't believe for a second that they would. So what bad thing do they really fear?

 

[Gurdur]

Germans and Austrians are (I assume) free to argue for socialism and communism

Actually, you're wrong on this. Frankly authoritarian advocation, including openly racist incitement, of any kind is forbidden, within strict legal guidelines which allow for some gray areas and specify a legal case must be made in each instance.

But the case for democracy against the Nazis amounts to, "Shut up, you're wrong."

Wrong again. Have you read nothing in this thread? Plenty of evidence for you to consider. You've simply willlfully ignored the whole legal situation, whether in the UK or elsewhere.

Which is why I ask - repeatedly - what bad thing would happen if Germans and Austrians were allowed to espouse Naziism, to actually run for office and print newspapers and make speeches, all saying, "We think Hitler was right, and here's why..."

What would happen if the KKK in the USA were openly allowed to espouse lynching, run for office (including police and sheriff chief positions), openly allowed to espouse segregation, openly allowed to burn crosses wherevetr they liked, and openly allowed to practice segregation in their private businesses, such as bussing, restaurants and rental housing ? Do tell.
Oh dear, they're not allowed to do that, are they? I guess you would then claim that the case against the KKK amounts to, "Shut up, you're wrong."

Begin to see anything yet? Explain why the KKK are not allowed to do those things.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think the long and short of is that they already know what bad thing could happen if Nazis were to run for office, because they remember it from last time. That's enough for them to do everything they can to prevent it from happening again.

Although I am very much in favor of free speech, you do have a very good point.

Learning from history is one of mankind's most compelling duties.

 

[richardm]

Do you think so? I'd like to hear that from the Europeans. Because that really amounts to, "We're afraid that if we let the Nazis talk, we'd turn into Nazis - again."

I don't believe for a second that they would. So what bad thing do they really fear?

Hey! I am a European! Yeah, there's a fear that encouraging people to become Nazis and indeed saying "Ah, the Nazis weren't all that bad really" will convince people to turn into Nazis. Again. I don't think this is an unreasonable belief, either; look at the ongoing Neo-nazi stylings of the BNP in Britain, for example. They're more popular than ever. Luckily that's not very popular, but they still have some seats on councils. (Don't think they've got an MP yet, but one suspects it may only be a matter of time).

It happened before - why should you suppose it would never happen again? There are plenty of people in Germany who think "the Nazis had the right idea". Why give them the opportunity?

 

[Ed]

To get back on track - has anyone done any further research into the charges? I admit I haven't but from the article the Austrian charges are not about a matter of free-speech.

From the London times today:

Denying the Holocaust is illegal in Austria, and carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

That sounds almost Reformation-ish. Like denying Transubstantiation or something.

 

[Gurdur]

look at the ongoing Neo-nazi stylings of the BNP in Britain, for example. They're more popular than ever.

Actually, no. They were the fourth biggest party in the UK for a while in the 1980's, but lost a great deal of support and members since then.

There are plenty of people in Germany who think "the Nazis had the right idea". Why give them the opportunity?

Consistantly less than 5 % nationally, judging by the polls and electoral contests.

 

[Darat]

From the London times today:



That sounds almost Reformation-ish. Like denying Transubstantiation or something.

Is that the legislation he is (has been) being charged under?

 

[Ed]

What would happen if the KKK in the USA were openly allowed to espouse lynching, run for office (including police and sheriff chief positions), openly allowed to espouse segregation, openly allowed to burn crosses wherevetr they liked, and openly allowed to practice segregation in their private businesses, such as bussing, restaurants and rental housing ? Do tell.
Oh dear, they're not allowed to do that, are they? I guess you would then claim that the case against the KKK amounts to, "Shut up, you're wrong."

Since "the KKK" largely consists of 5 people you are suggesting a powerful lot of activity for them.

The fact is that there is no reason that they (or anyone) cannot espouse lynching. The KKK guys can indeed run for public office and they can practice all of the segregation that they want if their business is entirely private (no a public accomadation). The cross thing is now limited, unfortunately. I am not sure of the details.

So, your point is?

Begin to see anything yet? Explain why the KKK are not allowed to do those things.

Mucho sound and fury, signifying very little, I fear.

 

[Gurdur]

Since "the KKK" largely consists of 5 people you are suggesting a powerful lot of activity for them.

Really? You do have evidence to back that up? Was that always so?

The fact is that there is no reason that they (or anyone) cannot espouse lynching.

You actually so sure of that? Or just saying that?

The KKK guys can indeed run for public office and they can practice all of the segregation that they want if their business is entirely private (no a public accomadation).

Work out what you want to mean.
Can a restaurant or private bus line practice racial segregation? If not, why not?

The cross thing is now limited, unfortunately.

What do you actually mean here?

I am not sure of the details.

I am unsurprised.

Mucho sound and fury, signifying very little, I fear.

No need for your self-deprecation.

 

[Ed]

Is that the legislation he is (has been) being charged under?

Dunno.

The Times says two thing

Historian is arrested for denying the Holocaust
By Clare Chapman in Vienna and Lewis Smith



THE controversial right-wing historian David Irving is facing Christmas in jail after he was arrested in Austria accused of denying the Holocaust.


He was arrested on a warrant dating back to 1989 and is being held in a prison in Graz, south of Vienna, for fear that he would abscond before a court hearing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1877787,00.html

Does the warrent refer to the Denying thing or does it refer in some way to his libel trial? Who knows.

 

[BPSCG]

Hey! I am a European!

Oh - sorry (for the error, not the fact that you're European...)

Yeah, there's a fear that encouraging people to become Nazis and indeed saying "Ah, the Nazis weren't all that bad really" will convince people to turn into Nazis. Again. I don't think this is an unreasonable belief, either; look at the ongoing Neo-nazi stylings of the BNP in Britain, for example. They're more popular than ever. Luckily that's not very popular, but they still have some seats on councils. (Don't think they've got an MP yet, but one suspects it may only be a matter of time).

So they amount to a fringe group, then?

Look, we have Nazis in the US, too, as well as the KKK, and Maoists and whackjob ideologues of every stripe. They are free to espouse their ideas as long as they don't incite violence or advocate the overthrow of the government. Occasionally, they get enough signatures on a petition to get on the ballot, where, on election day, you can generally count the votes they've received on one hand. While wearing mittens.

By letting them spout off, we've utterly marginalized them, to the point that when the KKK has a rally these days, the newspapers cover it as some kind of freak show, and the protestors always outnumber the paraders.

It happened before - why should you suppose it would never happen again?

Because I believe they learned something from the last dreadful experiment. I would hope that the lesson they learned was, "Don't put the Nazis into power, because they'll try to turn the world into a graveyard." Not, "Don't let them speak, because their siren song is so seductive that you'll become one yourself."

There are plenty of people in Germany who think "the Nazis had the right idea".

Really? Why not put that idea to the test? You might find there aren't nearly as many as you think, once they are allowed to spout their filth for everyone to hear. And you might also find that their opponents will redouble their efforts on election day, to make sure the Nazis get thoroughly trounced.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since "the KKK" largely consists of 5 people you are suggesting a powerful lot of activity for them.

I trust you are joking, albeit a bit morbidly? Surely, the KKK has more support than that.

The fact is that there is no reason that they (or anyone) cannot espouse lynching. The KKK guys can indeed run for public office and they can practice all of the segregation that they want if their business is entirely private (no a public accomadation). The cross thing is now limited, unfortunately. I am not sure of the details.

Is there a reason why I can't utter death threats against the President of the United States without severe consequences?

Perhaps there are people and then there are people?