Irving Case - SV650.org

20-02-06, 08:17 PM

So much for freedom of speech. How stupid can a law be to imprison someone for 3 years based on a misinformed opinion.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...RIA-IRVING.xml

Supervox · 20-02-06, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmonsta

So much for freedom of speech. How stupid can a law be to imprison someone for 3 years based on a misinformed opinion.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...RIA-IRVING.xml

Doesn't matter if it's a "stupid law" or not - it IS against the law in Austrua (& Germany) to deny that the Holocaust occurred.

I happen to think that not being allowed to drink a beer on the beach is a stupid law - but if I get caught here in Southend I can be nicked for it - I know the law it's my choice if I choose to ignore it !!

timwilky · 20-02-06, 08:50 PM

There has been plenty of debate over the right/wrongs of free speech lately and this is another stupid example.

Firstly I disagree with Irving, he is a prat. He is however entitled to his opinion. If as I do I disagree, I don't listen to him. This particular law in Austria had its place 50 years ago when it was enacted to stop any Nazi resurgence.But in post cold war Europe it is out of date. I think it would clash with the human rights act requirement for freedom of speech. But not being a lawer, don't quote me.

Secondly Irving is even stupider in that knowing he has an outstanding arrest warrant. Why did he ever go back there.

However, if Austria wants to show the world it is tough on Nazis and their apologists, why doesn't it do something about the 100s of former Nazis who find Austria to be a safe haven.

20-02-06, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supervox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmonsta

So much for freedom of speech. How stupid can a law be to imprison someone for 3 years based on a misinformed opinion.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...RIA-IRVING.xml

Doesn't matter if it's a "stupid law" or not - it IS against the law in Austrua (& Germany) to deny that the Holocaust occurred.

I happen to think that not being allowed to drink a beer on the beach is a stupid law - but if I get caught here in Southend I can be nicked for it - I know the law it's my choice if I choose to ignore it !!

The point I was making was the harshness in the penalty. 3 years for an opinion you had in 1990 is harsh.

20-02-06, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmonsta

The point I was making was the harshness in the penalty. 3 years for an opinion you had in 1990 is harsh.

The law doesn't recognise time as a mitigating factor....otherwise a nasty murder of twenty years ago would be treated as a minor misdemeanour if tried today.

(Oops...just remembered: that's exactly how OUR Gov't is treating IRA murderers of a few years back...)

Actually, Irving is a nasty piece of self-publicising 5hit - so who gives a damn. He was at great pains to be waving a copy of his latest book whilst entering and leaving court, so this is probably just a publicity stunt gone wrong for him.

Lissa · 21-02-06, 07:03 AM

I'm afraid I have no sympathy for the guy.

We went to Buchenwald Concentration Camp last year when we were in Germany. There was one room filled with photo's taken by American soldiers the day they liberated the camp. I had to leave the room in tears.

Anyone who can deny THAT horror has no right to my sympathy.

21-02-06, 09:34 AM

I agree that he's a prat. However, I think that this was a 'show trial' and that the sentence will be reduced or commuted on appeal.

tinpants · 21-02-06, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lissa

I'm afraid I have no sympathy for the guy.

We went to Buchenwald Concentration Camp last year when we were in Germany. There was one room filled with photo's taken by American soldiers the day they liberated the camp. I had to leave the room in tears.

Anyone who can deny THAT horror has no right to my sympathy.

Says it all. Top post.

21-02-06, 09:48 AM

Ahh so they convicted him

excellent

The law regarding holocaust denial is well known. Its existance is well documented and the reasons for being VERY well understood.

To flout the law on this matter was foolish and his sentence is quite lenient considering the maximum penalty available.

He knew the consequences, he made his choice.

As for the free speech issue? He was not prevented from making his interviews and speechs, or writing and publishing his books. He was heard by any that would listen to him.

He breached a law and was punished, whilst still being able to say what he wanted. This is perhaps the best compromise on this.

21-02-06, 10:36 AM

My old mate David

I have met Mr Irving on a few occasions(in his London home) and have had many phone and email exchanges.

I can't go into details but Mr Irvine was convinced that the firm I worked for were guilty as accused despite clear evidence that it was nothing to do with us and pointless for us to do this anyway. (it was a neighbour)

I found him to be very polite and very inteligent but completly convinced he was right and he said that the evidence against his claims were all part of a wider conspiricy. We are talking a bit of a nut here.

He really does convince himself that he is right and anything that proves otherwise is false and conspired against him. It's hard to deal with somebody who says you are wrong and the more proof you get the more wrong you become. This was just comming to a head and I was going to get the police involved when I had my nasty hit and run (strange eh!)

20-02-06, 08:17 PM	#1
Demonz Guest Posts: n/a	Irving Case So much for freedom of speech. How stupid can a law be to imprison someone for 3 years based on a misinformed opinion. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...RIA-IRVING.xml

20-02-06, 08:50 PM	#3
timwilky Member Mega Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Not in Yorkshire. (Thank God) Posts: 4,116	There has been plenty of debate over the right/wrongs of free speech lately and this is another stupid example. Firstly I disagree with Irving, he is a prat. He is however entitled to his opinion. If as I do I disagree, I don't listen to him. This particular law in Austria had its place 50 years ago when it was enacted to stop any Nazi resurgence.But in post cold war Europe it is out of date. I think it would clash with the human rights act requirement for freedom of speech. But not being a lawer, don't quote me. Secondly Irving is even stupider in that knowing he has an outstanding arrest warrant. Why did he ever go back there. However, if Austria wants to show the world it is tough on Nazis and their apologists, why doesn't it do something about the 100s of former Nazis who find Austria to be a safe haven. __________________ Not Grumpy, opinionated.

21-02-06, 07:03 AM	#6
Lissa Just Ballast Mega Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Rugby, South Mids Group Posts: 4,381	I'm afraid I have no sympathy for the guy. We went to Buchenwald Concentration Camp last year when we were in Germany. There was one room filled with photo's taken by American soldiers the day they liberated the camp. I had to leave the room in tears. Anyone who can deny THAT horror has no right to my sympathy. __________________ If It's Too Loud, You're Too Old! I'd Rather Have Two Big Bangs Than Four Little Strokes

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
In case of emergency!	shifter	Bikes - Talk & Issues	20	17-02-09 08:46 PM
Just in case	Dicky Ticker	The Essex Lounge	0	23-11-08 09:32 AM
In case of an Accident.	buell	Idle Banter	1	16-12-06 04:01 PM
Am i a sad case?	svrash	SV Talk, Tuning & Tweaking	6	07-08-06 06:12 PM
just in case you hadn't seen this....	CoolGirl	Soho Massive	0	09-02-05 06:48 PM

21-02-06, 09:34 AM	#7
wyrdness Guest Posts: n/a	I agree that he's a prat. However, I think that this was a 'show trial' and that the sentence will be reduced or commuted on appeal.

21-02-06, 09:48 AM	#9
Halonic Guest Posts: n/a	Ahh so they convicted him excellent The law regarding holocaust denial is well known. Its existance is well documented and the reasons for being VERY well understood. To flout the law on this matter was foolish and his sentence is quite lenient considering the maximum penalty available. He knew the consequences, he made his choice. As for the free speech issue? He was not prevented from making his interviews and speechs, or writing and publishing his books. He was heard by any that would listen to him. He breached a law and was punished, whilst still being able to say what he wanted. This is perhaps the best compromise on this.

21-02-06, 10:36 AM	#10
Rob S (Yella) Guest Posts: n/a	My old mate David I have met Mr Irving on a few occasions(in his London home) and have had many phone and email exchanges. I can't go into details but Mr Irvine was convinced that the firm I worked for were guilty as accused despite clear evidence that it was nothing to do with us and pointless for us to do this anyway. (it was a neighbour) I found him to be very polite and very inteligent but completly convinced he was right and he said that the evidence against his claims were all part of a wider conspiricy. We are talking a bit of a nut here. He really does convince himself that he is right and anything that proves otherwise is false and conspired against him. It's hard to deal with somebody who says you are wrong and the more proof you get the more wrong you become. This was just comming to a head and I was going to get the police involved when I had my nasty hit and run (strange eh!)