Documents on Real History

Letters to David Irving on this Website

Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.

Quick navigation



Snsenica of USA, writes Sunday, July 29, 2001



Amen to that


I'N NO lawyer, but before reading the incoherent ramblings of the Court of Appeals in thjis case, I had a lot of respect for the British penchant for reason in discourse. It seems rather simple to me. What the hell is a "Holocaust Denier"? The term must have some definite meaning since it is the basis of a goldmine for the accuser. Did the court spend any time defining the term? Not from what I could see.

I have to admit that I don't have a week to read carefully the longwinded wandering discussions. Anyway, if ever visit England I will be very cafefull to obey the laws lest I be brought before a rambling judge.


DAVID IRVING writes: I must admit there are puzzling bits in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I would have been ashamed to introduce such fuzzy logic into one of my books. See below:

Department of How-Do-They-Figure-That-Out?

Three British Lord Justices of Appeal get their wigs in a twist over the smear-phrase Holocaust Denier:

We are not persuaded that the expression can be given any precise technical meaning or that 'Holocaust denier' defines a class of persons precisely. Having regard to the views expressed by [David Irving] about a range of events in the history of the Third Reich, we agree with the Judge that the applicant may be described as a Holocaust denier.

-- Lord Justices Pill, Mantell, and Buxton, explaining their reason for refusing the Irving Appeal. [Full judgment]

© Focal Point 2000 David Irving