Focal Point Publications official website

Posted Thursday, July 22, 2004

[] Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech
[] Alphabetical index (text)
AR-Online

Quick navigation

 


Thursday, July 22, 2004

Editorial

Even Irving has right of free speech

DAVID Irving has been in this country twice before, seeking adherents to his utterly discredited views on Hitler and the Holocaust. On both occasions the results must have disappointed him. For most he was nothing more than an oddity.

Indeed, the only people who appeared to take him seriously were those who zealously opposed his very appearance here -- The likes of the students who succeeded in having a lecture by him at Auckland University called off.
click for origin

David Irving comments:

IT MIGHT seem to be an impertinence for me to write an editorial on an Editorial, but this one wishes to have it both ways -- to appear brave and liberal, while giving the victim a flying kick or two in the goolies to satisfy the lower breeds of his readership.
   This is a fight for free speech, gentlemen, not Rugby football. You can't come down squarely on the fence from an Olympian height, and preserve your dignity.
   It would have been more courageous if the New Zealand Herald had published my letter commenting on the attempted ban; or those of the many other Kiwis who have written to me in the last few days, protesting that the newspaper has suppressed their letters too.
   As for the newspaper's views on my worth: I wonder if Professor Dov Bing, or the editor for that matter, has ever read a book I wrote? Or the glowing reviews that accompanied the publication of each one, until the word got out that I had upset certain, ahem, folks -- lets call them the Oligarchs for the time being.
   In citing Mr Justice Gray's opinions and judgment, it might have been pertinent for the editor to recall that I was fighting single-handed in that London courtroom, impove- rished and outnumbered forty to one by the clever lawyers, counsel, barristers, historians, solicitors, assistants and PhD students hired for the Defence by the Oligarchs, who poured some Six Million Pounds into the historic battle (which has already been the subject of six books and two TV dramas).
   If the truth of their defence was self evident, it would not have needed that kind of money, or a three-month court battle, to establish it.
   As for the Defence's allegation that I am racist, which not even Deborah Lipstadt's book had claimed, I (wholly improperly) drew attention to the fact that in recent years I have myself hired a dozen personal assistants from the Third World and never regretted it, while the bewigged White Anglo-Saxon Counsel defending her in that courtroom month after month, and his entire staff of forty, were all a perfect white -- as was the face of His Lordship as he angrily squelched that observation.
   Had Lipstadt taken the witness stand, I would have felt obliged to cross-examine her on her own racist beliefs too. But like many a malfeasor before her, she "took The Fifth" and avoided testifying.

It seemed not to occur to these people that unworthy ideas are best discredited by allowing them to be exposed. Or that their action represented an assault on the freedom of speech that they enjoyed as citizens of a liberal democracy.

Almost 20 years on, the lessons have not been learned. The concept of free speech seems no more ingrained in the minds of some. The same British author, voicing the same crude, simplistic views, has announced plans to visit NZ. And the same call has gone up for him to be banned from entering the country. "I have no doubt the Government will turn his request down," says Waikato Jewish Association president, Professor Dov Bing.

He has some reason for this confident assertion. Some Governments take the easy option when faced with the potential disruption that can be part and parcel of visits by controversial figures. Australia has repeatedly paid scant regard for civil liberties by barring Mr Irving, even though on one occasion the full bench of the federal court ruled the ban on his entry invalid. And lately the activities of a radical Muslim cleric have prompted the British Government to contemplate achieving the same goal by curtailing free speech.

Governments of sterner metal will have none of this. Freedom of speech means that within established legal boundaries, differing views must be heard. That includes arguments devoid of credibility. Mr. Irving's detractors will, inevitably, point out that since his last visit his reputation has been further battered. The High Court judge in a 2002 libel case in London denounced him as a racist, anti-Semite and a falsifier of history. Mr Irving had, for his own ideological reasons, deliberately misrepresented historical evidence and portrayed Hitler in an unwarranted favourable light, said Justice Gray. Mr Irving was also found to be an active Holocaust denier and associated with right-wing extremists who promote neo-nazism.

None of that, however, should lead to the sort of over-reaction that would see him banned from this country. Mr Irving's views do not exceed the boundaries of free speech. He does not directly call for the sort of violence that Professor Bing worries will be a by-product of his presence here. But he would invite the full force of NZ law were he to descend to voicing racist or anti-Semitic views.

Mr Irving's lot is that of all historians -- to constantly re-appraise the events of the past. No event should be out of bounds. If, as in this case, the conclusions are palpably wrong, that is no reason for preventing their presentation -- and their challenging by more profound scholarship. The only counter to flawed views is informed debate. Opinions that during this process are shown to be devoid of worth, wisdom or accuracy will quickly be discarded.

A quotation largely attributed to Voltaire states: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It encapsulates a way of thinking that underpins liberal society. Those who seek to qualify such liberties succeed only in raising questions about their dedication to them. Free speech must be a robust right, not one that is truncated when it becomes an inconvenience or when the viewpoint is unpalatable.

More practically, it is verging on the nonsensical to ban an author whose views are already widely known in this country, if only through reports from overseas. Mr Irving's work can be ignored, such is its lack of merit. So, by and large, will any visit by the author unless unnecessary attention is drawn to it.

   [Write to the NZ Herald's Editor: [] ]

 

Dossier: attempts by New Zealand Jews to stop David Irving's 2004 visit

The above item is reproduced without editing other than typographical

 Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

David Irving's ACTION REPORT

or to hear when and where he will next speak near you

© Focal Point 2004 F Irving write to David Irving