Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
Kelly Snowden thinks it quite right, Thursday, June 30, 2005, that Mr Irving should be banned from speaking anywhere, and that nobody has the right to hear him
Yes, don't let Mr Irving speak - anywhere!
WHEN advised that the invitation to you had been revoked due to the unwillingness of the Manchester City Council to allow you to be associated with the event, you opined, true to form: "I suspect that the usual traditional enemies of free speech have intervened."
I am compelled to ask: Has it ever occurred to you that the City Council, and other entities and organizations that have distanced themselves from you, acted as it did because they consider your opinions to be unreliable? In other words, if such a body accepted the ruling of Mr. Justice Gray that you were shown to have falsified historical facts to conform them to your pre-determined view of history, isn't that a reasonable basis (though you would of course disagree with it) to decline to include you in a historical debate, without the need to invoke the specter of nefarious backroom dealings by Traditional Enemies or who[m]ever?
In reading your site, I never get the impression that you have any understanding or appreciation that a reasonable person, unfamiliar with the minutiae involved, who had read an account of the trial and the court's ruling, could conceive a negative impression of you as a historian without doing so from a Jewish or pro-Jewish perspective. I can assure you that not all of those who oppose your viewpoints do so simply because you may be perceived as anti-semitic; there is also the very real concern, based on the findings of the court, that you are simply unreliable as a historian.
Just a thought. And lest I be pitched into the "hater" camp, I have no Jewish affiliation whatsoever, considering all religious beliefs to be equally irrational.
David Irving replies: