David Irving and the right to be wrong
21/02/06 09:15 Ethics
I find myself uncomfortable with the jailing of David
Irving, former holocaust denier.
For anyone who doesn't know, he was imprisoned for three years yesterday in Austria - here's the story from today's Guardian. His crime was to deny that the holocaust happened and to allege that Hitler actually protected jews. He did this in two speeches. 17 years ago. They were widely reported so this becomes a media issue - without the profile I doubt that he would have seen this action taken against him.
Now, let's get something straight first: I do not accept his beliefs, and he has acknowledged that he was factually wrong. My problem is that someone can be jailed for speaking about an historical event, and for having done so 17 years ago. This isn't like members of the BNP being tried and retried for incitement to racial hatred now, it's someone presenting a view - by all means a skewed one - of history. And it's someone being imprisoned even though they've effectively recanted and acknowledged that a lot of what they said was baloney.
I hold no brief for David Irving, I find him repellant. But I'm not at all sure that locking him up is useful. His sympathisers will hold him up as a martyr and his critics will look vindictive. And anyone wanting to say anything contentious or revisionist about history is going to pause before saying it in public in case the media gets hold of it and it becomes a similar cause celebre.
I really can't see anything constructive coming out of this.
For anyone who doesn't know, he was imprisoned for three years yesterday in Austria - here's the story from today's Guardian. His crime was to deny that the holocaust happened and to allege that Hitler actually protected jews. He did this in two speeches. 17 years ago. They were widely reported so this becomes a media issue - without the profile I doubt that he would have seen this action taken against him.
Now, let's get something straight first: I do not accept his beliefs, and he has acknowledged that he was factually wrong. My problem is that someone can be jailed for speaking about an historical event, and for having done so 17 years ago. This isn't like members of the BNP being tried and retried for incitement to racial hatred now, it's someone presenting a view - by all means a skewed one - of history. And it's someone being imprisoned even though they've effectively recanted and acknowledged that a lot of what they said was baloney.
I hold no brief for David Irving, I find him repellant. But I'm not at all sure that locking him up is useful. His sympathisers will hold him up as a martyr and his critics will look vindictive. And anyone wanting to say anything contentious or revisionist about history is going to pause before saying it in public in case the media gets hold of it and it becomes a similar cause celebre.
I really can't see anything constructive coming out of this.
|