Thursday, July 22, 2004Editorial 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. 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
|