Stop the Nazi Irving

by Stephen Boyd Thu Feb 28, 2008 13:21

The Stop Irving Campaign is calling for protests to be emailed to the President of UCC and to the UCC Philosophical Society demanding that the invitation to the Nazi David Irving be withdrawn.

Please email your protests to:

Dr Michael Murphy
President UCC
president@ucc.ie

Ross Frenett, Auditor UCC Philosophical Society
philosoph@societies.ucc.ie

by UCC Student Thu Feb 28, 2008 14:23

You have no right to tell me who or what I can listen to. I wan to hear him speak. Justify it to me now why I should not be let hear him speak. People are entitled to review history if they feel there is a case to be answered. I have read his book "Hitler's War". Its a farcical piece of litrature, and as a result it would be hard to take him seriously. However, that is no reason to stop him speaking

by goosebumplies Thu Feb 28, 2008 14:49

Or if calling the convicted hate criminal proves too expensive, UCC student should simply befriend neoNAZI's & possibly get a mp3 file of his thoughts for free. All his engagements as those of David Dukes are videotaped by the faithful. Unless of course UCC student having read the book wants a chance to pose tough questions & practise his/her skills at oratory! In which case UCC student might be the source of a potential public order problem, which may constitute a crime. In which case the right to lawful assembly might be lawfully suspended by the local Garda superintendent.

Perhaps UCC student should take the matter up with the local superintendent. Write a letter to him & just to make sure you're taken seriously, write a letter to the minister of Justice. Explain what question you want to put to the convicted hate criminal. Let us know how you get on.

by Black Guard Detachment Thu Feb 28, 2008 14:52

There has been propaganda by fascists around Cork occasionally and a number of them have met from reports we have received. Letting Irving speak will only encourage these knuckleheads and let's not mince words: fascists are dangerous and not to be tolerated. History shows us that.

There will be a big protest against Irving and I predict we will stop him speaking once more. But while we're talking about this and organising the protest against Irving lets not forget that the Irish Govt is also doing its best to promote racism with its draconian and obnoxious Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Irving has some allies in the Dail if you ask me.

by RogerC Thu Feb 28, 2008 16:07

I think it is a dangerous path to go down to comprimise freedom of speech. (Voltaires famous quote etc etc) However I can't for the life of me see why anyone should invite this man in the first place, or why anyone would waste any time listening to him in the second place. I mean if you want to hear someone talking sh**e go down to the pub that way at least you could have a drink while you listend to some rambling drunk.
I think the students should vote with their feet and simply boycot the event. However it might prove to be an interesting experiment to see how many DO go to hear him, and their reaction to what he has to say. Better the devil you know.

by RogerC Fri Feb 29, 2008 09:40

Now we are getting to the really important debate. Freedom of speech is a given, so yes if someone feels the need to invite the man so be it. Freedom to go and listen to him, obviously the same. Now the real point, If you go, listen, and find yourself taking the man seriously, then it is time for us all to worry.

by Coilín - Self-Appointed Libertarians Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:59

If the UCC Philosoph is the same as it was in my days at UCC, then Irving will be subject to an appropriate degree of serious debate, heckling and derision within the hall, not to mind the protesters outside.

If somebody wants to invent an alternative history that denies the deaths of millions of people in the Irish famine of the 1840s, then they have the right to do so, and we have the right to protest. If somebody wants to deny Les Roberts' scientific estimates for civilian deaths associated with invasion and occupation of Iraq, or the murders of 13 unarmed demonstrators in Derry on Bloody Sunday, or the Nakba, or any other historical event, then they have the right to do so, and anybody else has the right to protest. The same goes for the Nazis' internment of millions of Jews, Romanies, homosexuals, communists and other undesirables in slave labour camps, where they were put to death in gas chambers whenever starvation and sickness made them unfit for work. Irving has the right to speak, and others have the right to protest.

But "protest" does not mean "stop" or "censor".

This case could be compared, at the level of basic libertarian principles, with the case of the offensive Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

While I am appalled that Danish newspapers have engaged in a hateful, Islamophobic "cultural battle" ("kulturkamp") by publishing - and recently republishing - cartoons of Muhammad, some of which are designed to offend Muslims, I don't think there should have been direct action to prevent the publication, because freedom of the press rests on the principle that the newspapers must have the right to publish provocative material, even if many people, including myself, find this material offensive and even hateful. I think there should have been demonstrations to denounce the newspapers for abusing their freedom to publish material that incites to hatred, but at the same time I insist that, in principle, they must have the right. Paradoxical, I know.

Similarly, while I abhor racism and fascism, I assert that racists and fascists must be permitted and even encouraged to express their abhorrent views in public, where other members of the public must be permitted and encouraged to decry such views. Even to those who promote a fascist vision that would abolish basic liberties such as free speech, must we grant freedom of speech. Otherwise, we will end up promoting our own brand of fascism.

If anarchist = libertarian socialist, I can't grasp how any anarchist can take part in an attempt to interfere with anybody's free speech. What does libertarianism mean if it does not include free speech? Note, the whole point of free speech is that we grant everybody the right to say what they want about matters of public interest, even if we think their statements are utterly nonsensical, counter-factual or offensive.

So who are the anarchists who are allegedly involved in a campaign to stop Irving speaking at UCC? Are there in reality any?

Best,
Coilín.

by Finnegan O'Leary - Oxford University Fri Feb 29, 2008 15:21

I would like to remind all my fellow Irish that Ireland didn't participate in the Second World War. Having said that, I would like to say that because of her neutrality, Ireland should have no "bones to pick" about the war and should be a place where all sides and ideas can be heard.

My observations about David Irving and the desperate attempts by Jewish groups and others to have him silenced, tells me that he is onto something that they don't like. Their reaction to him speaks volumes about their lack of confidence in the 'official' history about the Second World War. What riles me is that these people have the nerve to try to deny me the right to hear what I desire to hear. I refuse to allow them to have any control over me.

These mini dictators and admirers of Stalin should just give up and realize that they are having no influence on how many people hear David Irving or what David Irving has to say. They have had him banned from a number of countries but this can have only a symbolic meaning to them as all his material is freely available via the internet. The mentality of these people is truly pathetic and very old-fashioned.

by redeye Fri Feb 29, 2008 16:06

I can't quite get a handle on what Mr O'Leary was getting at in the comment above. The notion of freedom of speech for Irvine, and his freedom (Mr O'leary) to listen to whatever (nonsense) he wants to I have no argument with.
However to bring in Irish "Neutrality" in the second world war as some kind of reasoning for re-writing history makes no sense what so ever. I would suggest Mr O'leary should think hard before raking up Irish history on this matter, the Irish/fascist connection is one that I am not proud of. Not forgeting Irish neutrality post war when they colluded with the Catholic Church to facilitate a Croatian mass murderer to escape justice.

by prospero Sat Mar 01, 2008 13:10

I would prefer to support free speech and let consenting adults decide what they think.

by caliban Sat Mar 01, 2008 15:57

less than five months ago he was stopped from speaking in my city. The person who invited him to lecture on the Holocaust served a prison sentance for the part he had played in organising a gang of skinheads who routinely beat prostitutes with baseball bats.

Enough of your sophistry in UCC. Let us make it very very clear. Whomever invites Irving or David Dukes to speak under whatever pretext is guilty of promoting neoNazism. That goes on their permanent record & they will be monitored for life. You can consider that a threat if you want to as equally there are many in Europe who consider the constant attempts to give oxygen to neoNazism as a threat. So those who invite him ought consider not only their careers but exactly who they are making enemies with.

by prospero Sat Mar 01, 2008 16:15

A former member of the IRA was at UCC this year, does that make UCC a terrorist organisation or does the fact that they invited to him (and an opposition speaker) to speak on northern Ireland (Irving is speaking on free speach) mean that UCC supports the IRA.

I'll stick to "sophistry" if that's what people call common sense these days.

by aye carmela! Sat Mar 01, 2008 18:46

''You can consider that a threat if you want to as equally there are many in Europe who consider the constant attempts to give oxygen to neoNazism as a threat. So those who invite him ought consider not only their careers but exactly who they are making enemies with.''

what a load of shit,threatening people who disagree with you..hmmm

anyway,irving represents a lot of things i disagree with but i see no reason to try to stop this,i don't see whats wrong with providing a space in which people can question and argue with him. i very much doubt raising the wrong question will be a matter of public order like someone stated earlier.
sounds like another oppurtunity for the self righteous elements of the left to tell everyone else what is and isn't acceptable.

by Alan - IBT Sat Mar 01, 2008 19:03

In 1999 over 600 people were mobilised to stop Irving speaking at a similar event (http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/cork.html). I would like to help maximise the number of people on the No Platform demonstration against him in 2008. Is the Stop Irving Campaign planning on any organised street leafleting that people could help with and/or any organising meeting to arrange that leafleting and placard making etc?

I also echo Cork Punk’s question in the comments of the advert for Irving's meeting - “Why are you calling for a demo at 6:30pm if David Irving is talking at 6pm? Would it not make more sense to call it for 5pm and block the entrance?”

IBT

by DeDave Sat Mar 01, 2008 22:17

Were the same people protesting against Irving trying to stop Anjem Choudary from talking in Trinity College. A man who has called for people to be murdered. Or did they not want to offend him?

by calaban Sat Mar 01, 2008 23:29

Opposition to neoNazism is not a left wing matter alone. It seems I have to point out the painfully obvious. Many millions of Europeans were systematically stripped of their citizenship, civil rights, property. Then they were arrested without due process. They were put to slave labour & systematically starved. Many were experimented upon. More than six million died. The vast majority were of either Jewish faith or presumed Jewish ethnicity. Some were communist, Spanish republicans, jewish & masons. Others were Slavic capitalists. Some Jehovah witnesses had no truck with either socialism or communism but suffered a physical disablity.

Under the user name "goosebumplies" I had thought to make clear that the Holocaust & Shoah though of the same nature are not the same thing. At what stage do the descendents of the lost millions & the many more million survivors decide that it was more a jewish thing than a commie thing. (in the case of Dachau) more a liberty paranoia masonic thing than a refugee from the Spanish civil war (in the case of Mauthaussen) a slavic or a gay thing (in the case of Auschwitz?) ?

& so Neonazism is a threat which is considered seriously throughout Europe. The last meeting at which David Irving was allowed to speak saw less than 40 people present. 10 of whom were members of the police force, 2 of whom were overt video documentalists belonging to the European neo-nazi network & 16 of whom had convictions for hate related crime. Since that meeting, a further 9 were charged with hate related crime (a plethora of activities from cyber activity; hate mail, assault, desecration of places of worship or graves etc.) or other offences. 6 others simply watched. There are only a dozen left to do.

It is not a threat, it is self-defence.
It is not a leftwing issue it is a civilised value.

Irving is a proven NeoNazi & is a global figure in the promotion of NeoNazi politics.
He is a convicted hate criminal.

He is quite simply not a guest to a debate on free speech. UCC should invited Ahmadinejad instead. Or perhaps there isn't a hotel to put him up in.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Mon Mar 03, 2008 16:56

Because of some points made by posters regarding the time of the Stop Irving Protest it is necessary to clarify things.

The UCC Philosophical Society meeting with the fascist David Irving is due to take place at 7.30pm on Monday 10 March, therefore the Stop Irving Campaign protest has been organised to assemble at the main gate of UCC for 6.30pm on Monday 10 March.

by Me Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:06

The whole issue on the two threads points to a defecit in idealism on behalf of the
UCC phil Soc

What does that mean?

My point in posting my previous comment was to show that 2 very very emotive charges against the Nazis have never had any evidence to back them up. Both of those claims were repeatedly told to me in my secondary schools history classes, in order to demonstrate just how evil the Nazis were. Deborah Lipstadt, who won a libel trial against Irving, even admits that neither charge is true.

If neither oft-repeated charge is true then surely it is not beyond reason to be allowed to examine other claims made against the Nazis in order to determine their veracity.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but in order to be convicted of the 'crime' of 'Holocaust Denial' in both Germany and Austria, one merely needs to question any aspect of conventional wisdom regarding the many crimes commited during the Nazis reign against the Jewish people. In other words the very act of asking any question relatin g to what is taught in German and Austrian history classes leaves one open to being charged with the 'crime' of Holocaust Denial.

The EU recently drafted a document with the 'help' of one of Israels leading 'Holocaust Denial Experts' that seeks to give legal weight to the notion that anyone that might compare the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians can be officially declared an 'Anti-Semite'

That is where the slippery slope of 'Hate crime' legislation and denial of free speech leads us. Remember that when they seek to pass laws that label those against US imperialism as 'Supporters of Terrorism.'

My last statement may seem far-fetched, but I can assure you there are people lobbying right now in Brussels and Strasbourg whose job it is to make that happen, and they have a lot more power and influence than you or I.

by Me Mon Mar 03, 2008 21:17

I my double posts above where it reads

The EU recently drafted a document with the 'help' of one of Israels leading 'Holocaust Denial Experts' that seeks to give legal weight to the notion that anyone that might compare the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians can be officially declared an 'Anti-Semite'

it should read

The EU recently drafted a document with the 'help' of one of Israels leading 'Holocaust Denial Experts' that seeks to give legal weight to the notion that anyone that might compare the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians to the actions of the Nazi's against the Jews of Europe, can be officially declared an 'Anti-Semite'

by gurgle Mon Mar 03, 2008 21:47

and beyond. It is not quite simply that using pseudoscientific material from a pathological liar he attempted to give a gloss of intellectual credibility & pretense of historical method to his falsehoods.
It is not quite simply that since his youth he has actively praised apartheid & fueled a personality cult of Hitler & other high ranking NAZIs with regular pilgrimages to the shrines. It is not quite simple that every time naive students think his criminal & political record are merely proof of "forbidden opinion".

It is a very complicated issue which impinges on the outstanding law suits relating to the confiscation of property in the Holocaust through which millions of Europeans progressively & systematically lost their rights. It is an issue which touches the development of information technology & the contracts of IBM to catalogue the prisoners. His conviction in Austria ought have put him completely off the circuit & made it quite clear to little children in pretensious university debating clubs that for decades this man has sown evil.

He is a proven neoNAZI.
He is a known white supremacist.
He used falsified evidence & discredited his profession, college & university.
& whomever has invited him to UCC has done likewise they are inviting a man who was declared persona non grata by the Austrian supreme court & found guilty of fabrication in his defense. & now UCC students want to attract attention to his writing & let yet more naive sophists put his name through googleware. Shame on you.

Shame on your university for allowing you to do it. Shame on any European who allows the games of Nazism to be played. The sophistry of "free speech" the haggling over the end results of a systematic process & conspiracy of interests & laws, war & inhumanity to enslave & murder millions of fellow European & to this day not make proper redress.

by Me Mon Mar 03, 2008 22:24 freespeech at women-at-work dot org

A) It is not a 'Fascist event', but a recognised event of the UCC Philisophical society which is an oficially recognised society of the UCC.

B) I am not promoting anything beyond Free Speech. I have absolutely NO connection to Mr Irving, UCC Philisophical society, nor any of the other myriad of organisations that you might accuse me of being a member of.

C) Your inability to address any of the issues without recourse to profanity demeans you in the eyes of others.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Tue Mar 04, 2008 13:09

Article from Irish Times 4 March 2008
Irving should not be given a platform for his views

Tue, Mar 04, 2008

COMMENTControversial Holocaust historian David Irving has again been invited to speak at UCC. But he should not, because free speech is not about defending the right to deny historical truth, writes Pádraig Reidy

Last November, I passed a cold and boring evening in normally pleasant Oxford. The Oxford Union (as distinct from the Oxford University Student Union) had decided to hold a "free speech forum" and, egged on by local Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, had invited revisionist historian David Irving to speak alongside Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party and author of Who are the Mindbenders? - a tawdry pamphlet about how "the Jews" control the British public through the media.

Anti-fascist and minority groups were outraged, and took their protest to the gates, making it almost impossible for ticket holders, me among them, to gain entry. Eventually, I managed to sneak into the room where Griffin was speaking, doing his very best Dr Strangelove impersonation - just managing to hold back the straight-armed salute in polite company. It was not the most enlightening discussion I'd ever attended.

At the time I couldn't help thinking this was all vaguely familiar. Hadn't UCC's Philosophical Society (the "Philosoph") pulled a similar stunt back in 1999? And hadn't the meeting eventually been called off, due to a large protesting mob outside, and at times inside, the theatre?

I missed that episode, but thankfully the Philosoph has given me a chance to witness the sequel.

Last week it announced on its website that "on Monday, March 10th, the Philosoph will be holding an ordinary meeting with a debate on the motion, 'That this house believes that free speech should be free from restraint', with David Irving speaking in proposition".

Over at Irving's website, one is invited to "register interest" in Irving's appearance in Cork by giving him your name, address and phone number.

Irving has certainly had his brushes with censorship, having had a contract for his biography on Goebbels cancelled by Saint Martin's Press for what the publisher later described as "profiles in prudence" rather than reasons of historical accuracy, and indeed having been imprisoned in Austria after travelling there to address a neo-Nazi group.

But Irving is not all martyr here: the man who is called on by institutions as august as the Oxford Union, UCC Philosoph and BBC World Service to discuss his role as a free-speech champion himself rushed to take advantage of London's libel courts (notoriously sympathetic to plaintiffs) to silence a critic, Deborah Lipstadt, who described Irving as a Holocaust denier in her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.

Irving famously lost that case (having addressed the judge as "Mein Führer" at one point in the proceedings), and walked out of the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand with the tiny amount of respectability he had left as a historian in shreds.

Since then, he has occupied his time addressing conferences organised by straight down the line Nazis, selling books at second World War re-enactment events and accepting invitations to discuss freedom of expression.

Those who invite Irving in the name of free speech will argue several points: first, they will say he is not there to discuss his historical views, but freedom of speech. But the fact is that any discussion he takes part in inevitably becomes about his views.

At a live BBC World Service broadcast last year, he railed against a "certain affluent community" who had plotted against him. Who could you mean, David?

This is how it always ends up, partly because of the next line of defence, ie that Irving must be challenged on his views in open debate: this is the kind of neat, but ultimately flawed trick one can expect from the nation's leading student rhetoricians - suddenly we've gone from not addressing Irving's views at all to focusing entirely on them. Which is it to be? They will finally argue, with some legitimacy, that hard cases win arguments, and there is no point defending freedom of speech if you're not willing to defend the freedom of speech of some pretty unpleasant people. This is certainly true, but there is quite a difference between defending someone's right to speak and being obliged to give them a platform to speak.

Should Irving, and his mercifully small Irish fan club, wish to book a pub function room in which to discuss their views, then that is absolutely their right. But the fact that a university debating society books someone to speak inherently implies that they think he is worth hearing. He is not.

A person who hides historical truth for political gain, and attempts to use the courts to stifle academic discourse, has no place proposing "that free speech should be free from restraint'.

Last Thursday saw the premiere of a new film about Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who was killed by ultra-nationalists. He died because of his exercising of freedom of expression in trying to get Turkey to face the truth about the massacres of Armenians in the early 20th century.

The contrast with Irving could not be clearer. If the students of UCC are genuinely interested in freedom of expression, then perhaps they should invite one of the brave, honest journalists from Dink's paper Agosto speak, instead of the bankrupt and inconsistent Irving.

• Pádraig Reidyis news editor of Index on Censorship

by ribbid. Tue Mar 04, 2008 14:52

But there you go. Get it wrong again. Silly me. UCC really have given him oxygen. When will the Irish Times do a feature on hate crime?

by gurggle - (iosaf mac diarmada) NO PLATFORM Tue Mar 04, 2008 15:14

Because a "recognised" kiddies talking club can think of no other "freedom of speech" speaker than the world's leading NAZI?

Erwin Schrödinger (of the cat experiment) left Austria as one of the millions who faced progressive and systematic removal of their rights & imminent incarceration, slave labour & potential death. A complex of criminal acts called the Holocaust or Shoah. the writer Irving trivialises that most documented crime in history for which Austria imprisoned & barred him. Contrary to his apologists claims, he never rescinded his opinions & denied the Holocaust in public last March in Hungary.
Schrodinger was granted Irish citizenship by Eamon De Valera perhaps the most prominent refugee of the Holocaust to be favoured such.

Aloys Fleischmann (1910 - 1992) founded the Cork Symphony Orchestra became professor of music at University College, Cork and, four years later, in 1938 founded the Cork Orchestral Society and to 1992 remained its chairman was lucky to have been a member of the largest Jewish community in Ireland, that of Cork. He was born while his mother was on tour in Munich. She gave birth to one of the most respected figures of UCC's musical life while visiting both her & her husband's family. The majority of the german Fleischmann's failed in their attempts to escape the Holocaust. The Cork jeish community shrank after the war & most of its members moved to Manchester or North London.

Now UCC wants to turn a blind eye as its student debating body turns up the heat on the right to extreme hate speech & falisfication of history. Perhaps they feel its jewish history, not the story of millions of Europeans. Maybe they feel neither European or Jewish history was ever really Corkonian enough..,

by iosaf Tue Mar 04, 2008 22:28

I hope in these last days I have provided links to enough evidence that Irving is the leading NAZI alive & helped even the most naive proponent of "free speech" learn that there are suitable speaking guests available without besmirching the reputation of UCC & Ireland by playing the freedom of hate speech game.

I have most recently touched the names of Shroedinger & Fleischmann. An Austrian & Corkonian touched by the Holocaust. I have mentioned that Irving's last public speaking engagement was in Hungary in mid March 2007 when he again trivialised the Holocaust whilst addressing a far-right rally. One of the arguments put when Irving was first invited to speak in Ireland more than twenty years ago in TCD was that nobody had anything to fear from him. He & his ideology would appear all the most ridiculous. So what was he doing in Hungary?

I reported the emergence of the far-right in Budapest on this newswire in the early hours of Aept 20, 2006. I correctly observed from my home in Barcelona that pre-constitutional flags seen in the mob which attacked the TV building in Budapest that night belonged to a nascent neo-Nazi or ultra-nationalist movement. One of indymedia ireland's main reader/contributors confirmed such from his home in that city later in that 24 hour period. ( http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78484 ) The tensions which started that evening did not effectively alter the elected regime of that state, but did copperfasten the extreme right's organisational resolve which since its birth in Europe of the early 20th century thrives on confrontation. Thus it was not surprising that upon his release from prison in Austria & expulsion from that state, his first platform appearance would be in Budapest almost a year later to ostensibly the same political faction. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6453183.stm )

The former conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra of Ireland or RTESymphony Orchestra & founder of the Irish Chamber Orchestra & teacher of musical performance & orchestral conducting, Janos Furst ( August 8, 1935 — January 3, 2007) was 9 years of age when like 440,000 other Jews, & all known socialists or communists who had survived the previous dictatorship, he was detained. tattooed. deported in cattle truck. & put to slave labour. The number which few Irish people who attended his concerts in the Irish National Concert Hall saw upon his arm, was processed through a filing system developed by IBM & allowed Adolf Eichmann's office in Austria to ensure his & his family & his neighbours' transit to Auschwitz.

The Holocaust, Shoah, systematic complex of abuses, crimes & evil is the single most documented event in European or World history. No other genocide or complex of war crimes compares. It is a European issue. The vast majority of victims were poor. They were not like Wittgenstein or Shroedinger brilliant enough to escape Austria with an invitation from DeValera to an Irish university. The 250,000 refugees from the Spanish civil war might have been processed at Mauthaussen as communists, socialists & their details efficiently recorded through IBM technology as such regardless if they themselves considered themselves primarily to have fought for bourgois republicanism, anarchism or simply Catalonia.

We may no longer entertain the notion that NAZI-ism is so ludicrous to all & sundry that there is no threat to Irish or European cultural values when the leading NAZI apologist alive is invited to UCC to speak. UCC, its fellows, president & and academic staff allow the student body to host debates on the private property of the university. It is completely in their remit to put their own honour & the honour of Ireland ahead of the sophist naievity of some of its undergraduates.

& then maybe so chastised, those students will think of better guests to invite to discuss "freedom of speech".

by Mr. Man Tue Mar 04, 2008 23:30

Me: "Deborah Lipstadt, who won a libel trial against Irving, even admits that neither charge is true.". I'm pretty sure that Irving lost a trial against her. He didn't say libelous things, he alleged she did. If you had actually read the transcript of the trial, I cannot see how you could still stand up fo rhim. I trudged through its entirety and it was pretty gruesome and damning of Irving. In his attempt to bring libel charges, he effectively made people prove in a court of law that;
1.He deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence

2.That he is an active Holocaust denier

3.That he is anti-Semitic and racist

4.That he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism

Not only this, it was shown that he deliberately used forged evidence, dismissed massive amounts of eyewitness accounts as lying or insane, repeatedly used quite graphic anti-semitic remarks along with a whole host of other quite shocking revelations (to me at least).

I was in favour of letting him speak, on grounds of free speech and perhaps an oppurtunity to refute his beliefs. (I know he did a u turn at some point but not sure where his stance is now). However, after doing some more research, I think it would be morally wrong to give him a platform to legitimise his views or regain his reputation. So in the face of freedom of speech, I look to the freedom to protest.

If anyone is interested, the Judges ruling in its entirety can be found at the link to follow. Quite long but once you get to the actual pats where evidence and defence are offered, it is actually quite an easy read and very informative.

by Informed observer Tue Mar 04, 2008 23:51

The protest to Stop Irving is on at 6.30 monday the 10th ouside the boole basements on the university campus. I have read rumours that the debate has been moved off campus. Can i get confirmation of this or is just a rumour?

by Stop Irving Wed Mar 05, 2008 09:22

Students who have been allocated tickets for the Philosophical meeting have been told it is taking place in the Boole Basement. Any other information about alternative venues is just rumour and possibly deliberately being put about.

by William Wall Wed Mar 05, 2008 19:07

Irving is sometimes called a historian, but in reality he is a self-publicist and self-aggrandiser. The despicable thing is that unlike the average celebrity who hangs around in jungles in order to become famous, Irving chooses to hang around the BNP and their ilk. That he uses the Shoah as the vehicle is beyond words. The truth is that if someone had put a bullet in Adolf Hitler's head sometime around the Munich Putsch the world would be a better place and Nazism would be an obscure cult of a dead leader. NOt that I'm advocating anything of the sort for Irving – he's a relatively insignificant controversialist. But not allowing him to speak must be a good thing.
But what about organising an alternative event at the same venue? How about a concert, readings from the work of Holocaust survivors, or people who did not survive the Nazi activities? A snatch of Walter Benjamin, Primo Levi, etc.

by next step Thu Mar 06, 2008 14:51

Theodor Adorno of course wrote his minima moralia from the safety of exile in Hollywood. So now the NAZI's are organising on campus in Cork. No wonder, their star intellectual is expected to speak. We might wonder what the state of the sprinkler system is.

by Me Thu Mar 06, 2008 14:59

Mr. Man said:

I'm pretty sure that Irving lost a trial against [ Deborah Lipstadt ]. He didn't say libelous things, he alleged she did. If you had actually read the transcript of the trial, I cannot see how you could still stand up fo rhim.

I quoted her because he lost a libel trial against her - I even said as much in either this or a related thread.

I support his right to say anything he wants - that does not mean I support what he says. There is a difference between the two. If he lies or slanders someone then as long as they can prove he has deliberately lied or slandered them then they should be able seek recourse though the courts - I realise that in Irish law it is not at all necessary to prove that someone has slandered you - in fact it would be more correct to say that in Irish law it is required of them that they prove they have NOT slandered you - but Irish law is not really what we are discussing here.

IMHO the freedom to say what you want does include the freedom to lie - that does not mean I am in favour of people lying however.

the judges ruling in favour of Lipstadt doesn't change any of that - it merely proves that Irving was a fool to take her to court - and of course he has a right to be a fool just as much as he has a right to say what he wants, even if he tells lies. But if he tells lies he should at least make sure they are not provable lies :)

I notice you make no comment about the lies of Holocaust promoters over the years. Lying in order to make the Holocaust seem worse than it was, isn't a thousand miles away from lying to make the holocaust seem better than is was, IMHO.

Add to that the apparent correlation between the people that lie to promote the holocaust and the people that lie to cover-up the present day 'bigger Shoah' being threatened against the Palestinians, and we have a very potent stomach-churning mix over which we can all express indignant outrage. I can't wait until Professor Lipstadt takes people to court for telling lies in favour of Holocaust promotion, can you? :)

by Young Socialist - SY Thu Mar 06, 2008 15:11

No platform for Irving - he has no part in a debate on free speach!

by next step Thu Mar 06, 2008 15:13

This is a matter of moral defence. We have now proven the man went from admirer of Hitler, organising pilgrimages to shrines & praising Apartheid to fullblown falisification of history. In his career he moved from a historian of NAZI sympathy to a star speaker on the neoNAZI platform.
The Austrian Supreme Court even found that in addition to Holocaust denial, he had falsified evidence in an attempt to avoid his barring order from that state.

UCC debating society is not the Oxford Union. For one, the social profile of its members is different, for two, its legal right to invite speakers is different. For three - in its time the Oxford Union has invited Mosley of the pre-WW2 British union of Fascists & most sickeningly of all - the first anti-semite falisifier of History, inventor of the "illuminati" myth (those secret anarchists who wished overthrow imperial order)& main promoter of the "protocols of Zion" Nesta H Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesta_Webster

Know your place.

Civilised people in Ireland of whatever melanin content or whether they own dogs or not are morally entitled to take the following line -

No platform or No Debate.
pour cold water on their Nazi propaganda.

Irving praised Apartheid whilst this sign was in London

this graffiti appeared in Dublin after the Portobello Jewish Museum was attacked

by William Wall Thu Mar 06, 2008 15:46

What Adorno said can be understood in the context of the shattering information that was coming out of Germany at the time, not to mention the tragic deaths of his friends and colleagues such as Walter Benjamin. He later refused to regard it as a dictum, and effectively withdrew it when he said that all suffering has the right to expression (or words to that effect). In addition, he returned to Germany in 1949, i.e. at the earliest possible moment.
Anyway, poetry is no defence against fascism, and indeed there have been fascist writers such as Gabriele d'Annunzio in Italy and plenty of other artists. But writers and musicians and artists need to take sides and in Ireland we are all too eager not to.

by his majesty william.... Thu Mar 06, 2008 22:52

The terrible twins of Europe's last "far right" democratically elected government wanted to rename the Auschwitz to clarify that it was a "NAZI german" camp & nothing to do with Poland. We have already on this thread seen how music survived the Holocaust & Shoah. Several of Ireland's most prominent figures had been touched by the most documented complex of criminal acts in history. I was privileged to count one of them as a teacher.

But just as the far-right in Poland attempted to exhonerate itself, as tried the far-right in Hungary who Irving addressed in March 2007 again denying the Holocaust - the aftermath of the Shoah saw events of unspeakable ugliness. Tomas Gross, author of "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz," was described as a "vampire of history" by a Polish professor of history last year, not for falsifying history but rather for accurately describing various events between 1946 and 1949. One of which saw returning jewish families locked in a barn & burnt to death by those Poles who had taken their confiscated homes. Those who trivialise the Holocaust & its aftermath argue post war Europe was in a period of anarchy (A miserable abuse of the word). But to that the rejoinder is clear - Poles murdered up to 1,600 Jews in the Polish village of Jedwabne in 1941 as part of a traditional "pogrom" which apologists argue was an attempt to ingratiate the conqueror.

Polish anti-semitism would in turn play its part in the Stalinist purges of Jewish elements which ensured the horrors of the camps continued in the form of gulags till at least the mid Brezhnev period.

Tomas Gross would make a good speaker on Free Speech.

It is time for Ireland, her academic body & state to make it clear on which side of the fence of attitudes to the continental re-emergence of hate violence, xenophobia & historical revisionism they are.

NO PLATFORM.

by Bronterre O'Brien Fri Mar 07, 2008 03:09

Deborah Lipstadt, author of 'Denying the Holocaust', was sued by Irving for libel. He lost.

At the trial a character witness for Irving was Kevin MacDonald a professor from California. William 'Billyclub' Hughes, long-time Washington correspondent for Radio Free Eireann, WBAI, New York City, has praised the anti-Semitic writings of MacDonald.

Radio Free Eireann promoted the failed candidacy of fascist, Gerry Mcgeough, for the N.I.
Assembly.

At the end of Camus' novel The Plague the rats scuttle back to the sewers: let's unsure they stay there.

by B.O'B Fri Mar 07, 2008 06:37

Deborah Lipstadt's blog.

http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2008/02/avowed-antisemitic....html