|International Campaign for Real
Speeches by David Irving
November 8, 1992
© 1992 David Irving
Bowing to the demands of the League of Human Rights
of the B'nai Brith that he not be allowed to remain
in Canada, the Canadian authorities had arrested Mr
Irving on November 1, 1992 after he was
mystifyingly not allowed to cross into the United
Held for several days in an Immigration Jail, he
was released after an angry Canadian -- a complete
stranger -- posted a twenty thousand dollar bond.
With free speech thus restored to him, Mr Irving
described these disturbing events to a large
audience in Toronto on November 8.
Introduction by Mr Paul
LADIES AND gentlemen, as I have said, public
speaking isn't my format, unfortunately.
travelling with Mr. Irving for the past week. I am
sure in a much more eloquent way he can describe
the events of the last week, what has transpired;
but if, upon hearing about the events of the last
week, you feel the same sense of indignation at the
treatment by our government of a world-renowned
writer that I felt, I will ask each of you to try
to find it in yourselves to defray some of the
costs that we have incurred by contributing to the
David Irving Defence Fund. The donations are
tax-deductible, and I couldn't think of a finer
cause for it to go to at this time.
Thank you very
WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, the audiences are
getting bigger and bigger -- more and more strange
faces coming to hear me. This leads me to the first
regrettable statement that I have to make, which is
more in the form of a question or a challenge. And
this is as follows: In the light of certain events
that followed my speech
here in Toronto in the Primrose Hotel last Sunday,
can I ask any immigration officer, or R.C.M.P.
officer, or O.P.P. [Ontario Provincial
Police], please to identify yourselves with a
badge if you are present.
Right, I am therefore entitled to take it that
nobody present is here in their official capacity
as an immigration officer. I have to say this,
because I was ambushed at the last meeting that I
addressed here in Toronto by an officer [Mr.
Harold Musetescu] who was hanging around in
another room and subsequently in the room in which
I was speaking, dressed -- some of you might have
seen him -- in an extraordinary hippie garb with a
kind of combat pants, and a black T-shirt and a
foot-long ponytail and an ear-ring --
He turned out to be
an "undercover" officer of the Immigration
What kind of
camouflage did he think he was wearing in an
audience like yourselves? -- as I asked him to
describe, in the witness box in Niagara Falls the
I said, "Would you
describe my audience?"
"Yes," he said:
"they were mostly middle aged, bourgeois people
wearing collars and ties and suits."
So I said, "Why on earth were you wearing this
hippie garb?" [Laughter] "Why should
I believe that you were an immigration officer just
when you said you were and you didn't show me your
badge? Why should I take you seriously? Are you
familiar, for example, with the dress code of
English immigration officers? Can you take it from
me that an English immigration officer wears a
suit, or a uniform and a peaked cap and usually a
little toothbrush moustache? And that I had not the
slightest reason to believe that you were an
I am mentioning all
these things, because the events that have occurred
in the last seven days since I spoke to most of you
have shaken me to the core and given me profound
cause for disquiet about the future of your great
nation and Dominion, a country which I have been
visiting for a quarter of a century now, and which
I have grown to love.
I have visited
Canada again and again, from one end of the
Dominion to the other, from the maritime provinces
to British Columbia; I have visited city after
city, and spoken to audiences after audiences, and
I have never had the need to fear.
I have never felt
apprehensive about my future -- until an
extraordinary event that happened [at the
hearings] in Niagara Falls two days ago, when I
suddenly realised that I was being railroaded, I
was being set up; and that the entire machinery of
government -- this tottering fabric which is coming
down around your ears these very weeks and months
-- the entire machinery of government such as it is
here in Canada was being used to frame me. And I
wondered why? Why frame me? -- I am just an
ordinary English citizen, a visitor. I have come
and gone in this country, and I have spoken to
audiences which I suppose by many standards are
rather small -- they are growing, but they are
So what are the problem? Why are they using
these methods on me?
YOU KNOW BY NOW what happened, of course, before
I spoke to you in Toronto last week: I came across
the Niagara Falls at the Rainbow Bridge [on
October 26] and parked my car in Toronto; I
flew across to Vancouver, I drove down to Victoria
on the island of Vancouver, and I addressed
an audience of about this size in a Chinese
restaurant. After I had addressed that audience --
rather pleased with myself since the Canadian
Government had written to me a letter saying, Don't
come, we won't let you in! -- six Royal Canadian
Mounted Police officers stormed into that
restaurant, arrested me, and let me off in
handcuffs. I was held, the next two days, in five
different prisons in British Columbia.
I came back to
Toronto under these humiliating circumstances --
demeaning not just for me, but demeaning for Canada
as well, I think; as the Toronto Globe and
Mail so rightly pointed out in an editorial
on my case just a couple of days ago, asking: "What
in this country coming to, when we put a writer
into handcuffs? What are we frightened of? That he
might type something?" -- The Toronto
Globe and Mail.
Finally the press is getting it right; they have
begun to sense that something is amiss. To use the
American argot, they have woken up and smelt the
coffee -- finally.
It has been at my
expense. I have lost a lot of face; I don't like
being photographed . . . with people telephoning
from England and Germany saying, "we've seen your
picture in handcuffs !" "We hear that
you are being extradited !" -- You
know the way that newspapers are always getting it
wrong -- "you are extradited." "You are being
deported!" "You are being thrown out."
Give him the boot!
Goodbye David Irving!
Well, that is what
they wanted. They thought last Sunday, if you
remember, when I spoke
to you for what I thought would be my last time
in Canada, that they had seen the back of me. Yet
here I am again, back in Canada!
If our traditional enemies wonder what Irving is
doing back in Canada, they've got themselves to
blame for it, because I kept my part
of the bargain.
When I was arrested
in Vancouver, the authorities said to me, "Mr.
Irving, right -- we are going to have you in jail
for the next four weeks while we try your
deportation case, and at the end of it you will be
deported. Which means, Mr. Irving,
you get a stamp in your passport 'Deported from
DEPORTED FROM CANADA however doesn't just mean
deported from Canada: It means deported from the
entire world. If I have got a deportation stamp
from any country in the world, then I can't visit
Australia, or New Zealand, or China, or India, or
Japan, or any other country: because the first
question they ask on the visa application from is,
"Have you been deported from any country?" Deported
from Canada at the behest of the Simon Wiesenthal
Centre in Los Angeles -- those sleazy gentlemen who
are putting pressure on your people in Ottawa --
deportation from Canada therefore means: David
Irving, shut-up, the world wide!
So I had no
alternative in Vancouver but to strike a bargain
with the immigration officers, whereby I said:
"There is no point my staying in Canada if I am
going to be held four weeks in jail; my tour is
Fifteen cities I
was going to visit, you remember: not just in
British Columbia, not just Vancouver and Victoria,
but Kelowna, Salmon Point, and right across the
country; Alberta, Calgary, Red Deer, Edmonton,
Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, here in Toronto,
Ontario, Kitchener, Hamilton -- all the way across
Ottawa. All of these cities, I was going to visit
in those three weeks.
The whole tour was
finished if I was in prison. As my opponents
thought, they had silenced me -- one way or the
I did a deal with
Canadian Government. I said: "Okay, I'll leave.
Give me seven days." They said, "We'll give you
forty-eight hours. Otherwise we shall
Hearing that, the
adjudicator, who is a kind of a judge in Canada
said, "Right, we will give him not just 48 hours --
we will give him fifty-six hours,"
just to let the government lose a little bit of
weren't very happy about this; they wanted to have
a deportation order against me. They considered
that I had outsmarted them by winning what is
called a "Voluntary Departure Notice", whereby I
depart from Canada under my own steam and at a
place of my own choosing, as long as I leave Canada
by a certain date and by a certain time.
The time that was
allotted to me was Sunday [November 1], a
few hours after I spoke
to you last -- by midnight on Sunday I had to
I said I would
leave by the Rainbow Bridge. In fact I turned up at
the Whirlpool Bridge at eleven P.M. that night and
I drove across it. Then something very odd
happened. When I got to the American end, the
American officials delayed and they dawdled. I was
the only car there for fifteen, twenty, thirty
minutes. They dawdled and they looked at my papers,
and they said, "We'd better check up a bit." The
telephone rang back and forth across the bridge,
and there were messages that passed to and fro by
the needle-printer that I could hear zipping back
and forth behind the partition.
AT ABOUT TEN minutes to twelve I got anxious. I
said, "I am very sorry, but I have to get back to
the Canadian end to get this form stamped." The man
[a Mr. Howe] said, "Only a few moments. .
."At five minutes past twelve he
said, "Right, now you can go back to
the Canadians and sort it out, and then come back
here." The Canadian immigration officials were
waiting at the Canadian end -- an ambush!
"Mr Irving, you can
park your car there and unload; you won't be
needing your car anymore. The rental company will
come and take it away. We will have it repatriated
to Washington, D.C."
Handcuffs, back to
the immigration department.
hearing will start in the morning."
They had me just
where they wanted: A deportation notice after
I don't know at
what level these decisions were taken, ladies and
gentlemen. I am not at this moment going to blame
Mr. Bernard Valcourt, the minister of immigration
and employment here in Canada. Not yet!-- Not till
Next Thursday is
the great showdown here in Ontario, and I shall
explain why later on.
All I know is that
somebody struck a deal across the Whirlpool Bridge
whereby I would be bounced back into the welcoming
arms of the immigration officers who had tried and
failed to get that gag order on me. And this time I
had no alternative but deportation.
I was held in a
cell again, the sixth on this trip -- how sorry I
am for your country! -- taken in a van round to the
immigration Hearing Centre in Niagara Falls for the
hearing that was going to take place at nine
By nine-fifteen it
would all be over, of course, if all went smoothly:
I would be in handcuffs, on the floor in the back
of a van being driven to Toronto airport for
deportation back to Britain.
And that would be
the end of the matter.
Were it not for one
At ten to nine
[that Monday, November 2] I was visited by
the authorities in my cell [the case presenting
officer, Mr. Steve McCaffery]. He asked me:
"Mr. Irving, we have heard a rather disquieting
rumour -- that last Friday you paid a
two-hour visit to the United States. Is this
true or is it not?"
This was of course
a few hours after the Voluntary Departure Notice
had been served on me.
Had I made a short
excursion to the United States, across the border
from British Columbia into Washington State, or
I said, "Before I
answer that question, I want you to answer a
question of mine. You are bound to answer it, and
because I am here without an attorney you have got
to give me independent advice. If I say, 'Yes, I
did visit the United States last Friday after the
Departure Notice, am I making my situation worse or
"Mr Irving," he
said, "if you can prove that you went to the United
States last Friday evening for an hour or two then
your situation is immeasurably better, and we are
in a very embarrassing predicament indeed.
So I said, "Right.
I did. And you are."
I HAD MADE this trip down from British Columbia,
down their highway Route 99 onto Interstate-5, into
Washington State, just twelve of fifteen miles over
the border, because a man had visited me in the
Hearing Centre at Vancouver, and he wanted me to
authenticate some documents; I am an historian, and
he had some documents in his home which were just
over the border -- would I drive down with him and
authenticate these documents for him as a
historian, countersign them, and then he would
drive me back. In fact, he'd do me a favour: he
would drive me over the ferry, over the straits
into Victoria to pick up my bags and bring me back.
He was prepared to do an eight-hour favour to me,
and that's what I did. I never knew this man
before; I had never met him before, and I haven't
met him since.
I am going to meet
him on Thursday though: You wait! He is coming
over; we are bringing him over. We need him now as
a witness, of course, because very odd things have
happened in the meantime. (If you think that that
little episode on the Whirlpool Bridge was odd,
wait till you hear this!) With the utmost
difficulty we traced this man. Fortunately . . . In
the detention centre everything was taken off me,
of course. In the detention centre your tie, your
belt, your shoelaces, everything goes.
They took away all
my property, my suitcases and everything. But
tucked down inside my jacket pocket I found that I
had still got his visiting card. Providence
We began to try to
find him; he wasn't at home in Vancouver; he wasn't
at home in Washington State; we couldn't find him
for three days. I managed to get an adjournment
till Wednesday. My attorney came over that day. The
famous Doug Christie, a brilliant, bold, brave,
courageous barrister of whom Canada can be
You may wonder why I am in Ontario, yet I want
to have a barrister from British Columbia. This is
because I want a barrister who is not incumbent
here in Ontario and who doesn't tremble for his
future if he stands up for the likes of me before
the courts of Ontario -- I have to say this --
because your system here in the law courts is
Documents upon documents, exhibit upon exhibit,
case upon case, prove how corrupt the law courts
are: they are all on a kind of auto-pilot. They
know what judgements to hand down, they know which
opinions to express in order to avoid causing
If an outside
barrister like Doug Christie registered before the
bar in British Columbia makes, as he is allowed, an
occasional appearance before the bar here in
Ontario, he can expect the wrath of God to be
brought down on him -- or in this case the wrath of
other Gods -- because by defending Ernst
Zündel, by defending others who has
transgressed against the Thought Laws in this
country, he is now subjected to enquiries and
allegations and claims against himself, demanding
that he be disbarred in Ontario, disbarred in
British Columbia, because he's offended against
these people by standing up for what he believes to
be right in the courts in this country.
And by God, when he
came on Wednesday to my little, rather humble,
immigration hearing at this rather tiny courtroom
in Niagara Falls, he put the fear of God for the
first time into the Adjudicator and the case
presenting officer. I felt proud that at last I had
a man beside me who wasn't going to take any
nonsense. Straight away he secured for example
You might think it is reasonable
that a man like me should be given bail so that I
can carry out the investigations to prove that I am
in the right here.
You can be a
murderer in Canada -- a case was reported in the
Toronto Star two or three days ago, a
man from Barbados; he had killed his
fiancée, stabbed her to death, twenty-six
slashing wounds with a dagger; he had murdered her!
Released on six thousand dollars bail! Six thousand
dollars bail; he jumps bail, he is gone. Farewell!
Good riddance too, we might well say.
The Adjudicator in
my case said: "Well, very well then. Reluctantly --
because I am not satisfied that Mr. Irving will
appear for a hearing -- I will grant bail.
Twenty thousand dollars!"
That is the
difference. A murderer: twenty-six stab wounds into
some unfortunate girl's back: six thousand dollars'
bail! A writer: in handcuffs: twenty thousand
dollars bail. --
A man stood up in
court, whom I have never seen in my life before.
One of you. A Canadian. A German, in fact; not a
German like many of you who came over after World
War Two, because he came over here at age six,
seventy years ago. A man who spent his entire life
serving Canada as an employee on the Saint-Lawrence
Seaway, one of the finest, most outstanding,
examples of Old Canada as I remember it.
He stood up in
court and announced, "I don't know Mr. Irving, but
I am a judge of character; I've got a couple of his
books, and I will stand surety for
Adjudicator said: "Standing surety is not enough;
we want cash. "
The man said: "Very
well," -- and he went to his bank and he came back
with twenty thousand dollars in cash.
* A Burns Security guard on night duty at the Niagara Falls
detention centre had just privately advised Mr. Irving of
That was Wednesday. By which time the
Adjudicator had said, "The whole case hinges on
whether Mr. Irving did in fact make this trip last
Friday evening to the United States or not. The
evidence is that he didn't, because he didn't get a
stamp in his passport in either direction."
We now said, "But
we understand," -- because I had been tipped off by
a little dickie-bird,* and such is indeed the case
-- "we understand that when a car enters the United
States from Canada, its licence tag is now
automatically registered by computer as it goes
through the border." (Its tag is automatically read
by a computer, by a long-distance telescopic camera
-- that is why they make you stand with your car a
certain distance -- and the operator punches in the
number of passengers sitting in the car too).
inquired, "Is this so?"
The case presenting
officer, an immigration officer of long standing,
said: "I am afraid we don't know if that is true or
" -- We don't know
if that is true or not. But I will make enquiries,"
he said. (This was Wednesday.) "And besides," he
said, "even if Mr. Irving can produce the computer
record showing that his friend's car crossed the
border on that occasion, on the night of October 30
-- on Friday night -- and that there were two
passengers in it, this does not of course prove
that he was one of the people in the car!"
"No," I said, "It
wouldn't prove that I am telling the truth. But it
would prove if I am lying , wouldn't
it? If you obtain the computer record -- as you
have probably already done -- and if you find our
car isn't registered, then you prove
that I am not only a liar but a perjurer, because I
have sworn under oath here in this court that I
made that journey!" -- Very uncomfortable, very
"Well," the adjudicator asked, "What other
evidence have you?"
We have now located
Mr. Brian Fisher," I said, "the man who drove me
across the border. We will try to get an affidavit
from him although he is very reluctant because he
is a powerful businessman on the west coast, and of
course having business interests on both sides of
the frontier he has to fear the kind of pressure
that can be put on businessmen." (He made this
quite explicitly clear when we began to deal with
him.) But finally on Thursday Mr. Douglas Christie
persuaded him to swear an affidavit himself,
confirming all the details of the journey we had
made -- the ferry trip to Victoria, the ferry trip
back, the border crossing and the American border
guard who said. "Oh, yes. You have an
Englishman ; I knew an Englishman
once. He was a dweeb as well!" I don't know
what that means; I suppose it is some kind of
endearment, but these little things, they stick in
your mind -- like the fact that when we came back,
the Canadian border guard was a Pakistani. I
remember that fact -- in fact I found it ironic.
Here is a Pakistani letting Mr. David Irving back
These little things
register in your mind, because it turns out (we now
have his testimony) that his name was Mr. Sandip
Basra. So I was right on that point as well.
So all these facts
are confirmed. We obtained the ferry tickets, with
times printed on the ferry tickets, crossing from
Vancouver to Victoria and from Victoria back to
Vancouver, which exactly fitted in with my
testimony. But we did not yet have the essential
testimony from Mr. Fisher himself.
WELL, ON THURSDAY Fisher supplied the testimony;
he had sworn an affidavit in Vancouver and he sent
it across to us by Federal Express, and we had it
in the courtroom on Friday morning.
All the media were
there. They had so many media men in that tiny
courthouse in Niagara Falls that they set up a
special media room, about half the size of this
room, in which they had thirty or forty journalists
and closed-circuit television being pooled among
all the television channels (because they expected
I was going to be led away in handcuffs and
deported back to England.) But, of course, we
had the [Fisher] affidavit.
Five minutes before
the court hearing began, in came the case
presenting officer [Mr McCaffery]: "Mr.
Irving, did you get that evidence that you thought
you might be able to get?"
I said, "You are
about to find out -- you are about to
We had it all lined
up. We went into court. And this is when events
took an extraordinary turn. You remember --
we had a sworn testimony of Mr. Brian Fisher,
the man who drove me across in his pale blue
Lincoln convertible, number plate (licence tag) 020
we have also the testimony of his girlfriend,
Helga Ashton, who was in the house down in
Washington State when I arrived.
more than that: I made two telephone calls from
his house, one to a friend here in the 416 area and
one to a friend in the 604 area in British
and both of them have testified, by affidavit or
in the witness stand, that they have received
telephone calls from me in which one of them I said
I was "south of the border," and in the other I
said I was "in the United states."
(The gentleman in Area Code 416, in Toronto, said,
'What, are you in Buffalo?" I said, "I, uh, can't
say where I am, just that I am in the United
WE HAD THAT testimony. But at this moment, the
world appeared to cave in. Because as, the case
began, the Canadian Government presented evidence
which I have here. In fact, let me show it to
I also copied it
for every journalist present.
Let me tell you . .
. Put yourself in my position: You know you
are telling the truth, and now the Canadian
Government produces an affidavit from an
immigration officer in Vancouver in which he
I removed the attached documents,
marked as Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C'
respectively, from Canadian immigration files
maintained at Regional Headquarters, Office of
Immigration, in Vancouver B.C.
Exhibit 'A' is a
print-out, a computer print-out from the United
States Immigration Service in Blaine in
Washington [Just over the border]
entitled 'TECS II'. This document shows the
dates from September 11, 1992 to November 4,1992
that a vehicle with Washington licence 020-ELU
entered the United States [from British
Columbia]. The second document, also from
the United States Immigration Service and marked
as Exhibit 'B', identifies the owner of that car
as being Mr. Brian Fisher.
Here is the computer print-out--every crossing
made by that car
from Canada to the
United States, allegedly. And yet that trip that I
made has been deleted! It's gone! It is not
There we have it:
October 13, the trip before. October 31, the trip
after. But October 30, the trip that I made, has
been wiped off the face of the computer.
of incredulity and "Shame" ]
position now. Your future, your career, your
professional life as a world-wide historian depends
on a document that has been falsified and
You know it is faked;
I know it is faked.
I went straight in
--, the journalists present who were there that day
will know what I did when I saw that -- I went
straight into the press room, into the media room,
blazing with rage, as soon as the hearing was
adjourned. I went straight into the press room.
I said, "Here, take
this! Somebody get it copied. Get twenty, thirty,
forty copies made! Take it to your editors. You
have got a week now" -- because we were being
adjourned for a week -- "You've got a week now to
carry out investigations in British Columbia to
find out who did this: How did they do it? Is it
possible to make the deletion from the computer?
Who is the swine who did it? On what orders did he
do it? How high up the chain of command from this
immigration computer in British Columbia -- all the
way up to the minister of immigration and
employment Mr. Bernard Valcourt -- how far up the
chain of command this particular scandal stops.
This is in my opinion worse than Watergate, this is
a government falsifying court evidence in order to
THEN ANOTHER STRANGE thing. A few minutes later
we spotted that Exhibit "C" wasn't there; it had
gone! He had referred to "Exhibits 'A', 'B' and
'C'," We went back to have a look at his
hand-written affidavit. He had said:
Exhibit "C" is a document from the
Delta Pacific Resort and Conference Centre
[a hotel at Vancouver airport]
But it wasn't there! Vanished!
challenged the government, at the hearing: "Where
is Exhibit 'C'?"
said, "Exhibit 'C' was just a document from the
hotel that Mr. Irving stayed in on his return,
allegedly, from this schoolboy trip, this schoolboy
prank of a trip to the United States."
"But where is
"Oh, we removed it,
because we thought it was unimportant to the
We finally got it produced. It turned out to
show exactly the time that I arrived at the hotel
at 2:28 A.M. that morning on my return from the
United States, which exactly fitted in with the
times that I had given in my own sworn affidavit of
my movements that night. But they had removed it
because it didn't fit in with their case.
At this point I
have to say that the Adjudicator [Mr. Kenneth
Thompson] who is apparently a decent man after
all, you could see him visibly flipping.
He began to frown,
and suddenly he was no longer so accessible to the
arguments of the government.
When we now asked
for an adjournment to enable us to bring our Mr.
Brian Fisher and his friend Helga Ashton from the
west coast -- a trip as you know over 2,500 miles
-- the Adjudicator, who had previously turned down
every single one of our applications for sub-poenas
and exhibits and witnesses to be heard, suddenly
said: "In this case, out of fairness to Mr. Irving,
I am going to allow this application; I am going to
allow Mr. Brian Fisher to be called as a witness,
and Miss Helga Ashton."
AND MR. FISHER is going to arrive, believe it or
not, with a print-out from his telephone
company records proving that I made the
telephone calls that I said I made!
So next Thursday
[November 12], when the case is resumed,
there are going to be embarrassing questions. Not
for me! I am looking forward to it--unless of
course they come with some fresh
* Kurtz was seen during an adjournment in the first hearing
on November 2, in a corridor, coaching Crown witness Harold
Musetescu. After Mr. Irving accused Musetescu of perjury, he
challenged the "undercover" officer to admit speaking with
Kurtz. The Adjudicator disallowed the question.
Who knows? We have to be prepared for
WHAT IS THIS all about? Why are they doing this?
Why did your government first of all bend its knee
to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles and
say, "yes-Sir, yes-Sir! Mr. Irving? -- We'll have
him banned from Canada straight away." And then
that swine Irving comes all the same; he doesn't
obey The Letter.
He not only comes;
he flies right across Canada from Ontario to
British Columbia and makes that speech.
"Oh gosh! What can
we do next?" "Arrest him! Deport him!" "Oh, he has
done a deal! Trap him on the Rainbow
Bridge!" "But he's gone back in!" "Falsify the
They are in panic;
they are in panic and you have seen
it. You have seen it on television. Night after
night this case has been reported.
Mr. Marvin Kurtz,
this arrogant representative of the Anti-Defamation
League*, his first comment shown on television
news was; "I want that guy out of
language: "I", "Marvin Kurtz,"
I can well believe
it. Probably for the first time in his life, he has
spoken the truth; he wants that guy out of
Yet of late he has become rather quiet; he has
not been so prominent on television of late.
Because he is now
going to have to answer questions as to the
rôle of the Anti-Defamation League (With whom
I have no personal squabble, of course, despite
everything they have done to me.) He is going to
have to admit the rôle that they have played
in putting pressure on the Canadian Government at
I think, got it right in their report on this
hearing on Friday night when they said
If it turns out that David Irving has
been telling the truth when the hearing is
resumed on Thursday, the immigration minister
Bernard Valcourt is going to be in the hot
And not just in the hot seat--I hope he is going
to be in an ejector seat. I hope he
is going to be on his way out!
TO THOSE OF you who are new to my talks. Let me
summarise the possible reasons why they are using
these extraordinary techniques, these
extra-governmental techniques to try and silence
me. It is because I am probably the most credible
voice in the entire revisionist campaign, or what I
call the International Campaign for Real
And my campaign is
being met world-wide by these methods. "Okay," I
say, "a hundred thousand people did die in
Auschwitz." We can estimate that now, because the
Russians have released the death books. We have the
death certificates of Auschwitz, all in bound
volumes. There are forty-six volumes of death
certificates, listing sixty-nine thousand dead.
They are not complete; there are some volumes
missing from some of the years, from 1941 to 1944,
but by large they are there. We can say, probably a
hundred thousand deaths all told, most of them from
epidemics -- most of them from diseases like typhus
-- but they are there. Around one hundred thousand
dead in that brutal slave labour camp.
How many were
killed in Auschwitz? Well, according
to the British official history, we were reading
the codes of the commandant of Auschwitz, the
top secret S.S. codes. Anti-Defamation
We read them during two years in the middle of
that period: The commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf
Höss, was reporting in top secret S.S. code to
his superiors, day by day, on what had happened in
Auschwitz--how many prisoners were arriving each
day, how many were leaving each day, how many were
on hand at midnight--and how many had died.
He broke down the number of deaths into
those who had died of typhus and epidemics, and
those who had been executed by hanging and
shooting, which were an infinitely smaller fraction
according to the British official historian
Professor Sir Frank Hinsley.
Now, if we say the
infinitely smaller fraction might have been as many
as one quarter of that hundred thousand, we arrive
at around twenty-five thousand people who may
have been murdered in Auschwitz, by hanging
and by shooting. (Hinsley himself says, "There is
no reference to any gassings in these intercepted
Twenty-five thousand killed, if we take this
grossly inflated figure to be on the safe side:
That is a crime; there is no doubt. Killing
twenty-five thousand in four years -- 1941, 1942,
1943, and 1944 -- that is a crime; there is
Let me show you a
picture of twenty-five thousand people being killed
in twenty-five minutes. Here it is, in
my book HITLER'S
WAR, a vivid picture of twenty-five thousand
people being killed in twenty-five minutes by us
British [in February 1945] in Pforzheim, a
little town where they make jewellery and watches
in Baden, Germany. Twenty-five thousand people were
being burned alive. An aerial photograph of it,
taken by Canadian airman. (You might think this
ironic in connection with the recent dispute over
the television film "The Valour and the Horror").
That is what it looks like when twenty-five
thousand civilians are being burned alive in
twenty-five minutes. One person in four, in
twenty-five minutes. One person in four in that
As I said when I
was speaking in Kitchener yesterday, it is as
though somebody came to Kitchener, a town with
about a hundred thousand people, and killed one
person in four in twenty-five m inutes. That too is
minutes! In Auschwitz it was a crime committed over
You don't get it
spelled out to you like that. Except by us, their
opponents. When you put things into
perspective like that, of course, it
diminishes their Holocaust -- that word with a
capital letter, the word with the capital H.
(That in itself
makes it so suspicious, when you think about it.
It's like a registered brand name: Tylenol, capital
T. Something you've got to buy! Comes in a
But there is
nothing that says you have got to take the whole
packet; you are perfectly entitled to say, 'I
Believe part of it, but I don't believe all of
You are entitled to
analyse what you are being told. But we are told
that this is precisely what we are not
do. Anybody who wants to analyse any part
of the Holocaust story is dimissed and smeared as
an anti-Semite or, at the other end of the scale, a
"pro-Hitler apologist, a "Nazi apologist," -- you
have read the headlines, the words the newspapers
use about me as a present.
But not for much
longer. I guarantee they won't use these headlines
about me on Thursday, at the end of our hearing in
Of course, as my
friend Mr. Norris spelled out to you, it is going
to be a terrific battle. I used to hear the word
campaign; it isn't just a campaign now. It
has turned into a life-and-death struggle; I have
got them by the throat, they have got me by the
throat. But on Thursday we shall see what happens,
because on Thursday we are flying in from the west
coast Doug Christie again.
David Irving 1998
We are flying in Mr. Brian Fisher; we are flying
in his friend Helga Ashton, and they are going to
swear under oath that I made this "pivotal" trip
[to the U.S.A.], and that is when the
OBVIOUSLY, AS Mr. Norris said, this isn't easy
for us. We have taken upon ourselves more probably
than we can match; we are coming up against the
entire Government, funded by all the funds that you
tax-payers provide. They don't mind how much all
this costs, but it is costing us a fortune.
I have not only
lost the entire proceeds of this three week tour,
as you can believe -- if I had come across Canada
visiting all these cities. (I am a professional
writer, a professional historian, a professional
speaker; I live from it.) They have effectively
wiped out two months of my income by doing this to
me, and not only that; they have held me
incommunicado, they have held me in prison, they
have inflicted on me the cost of hiring lawyers
like Doug Christie.
it is worth it. It reminds me of 1970, when once I
was sued for libel. I fought that case, and it
didn't matter who lost or won -- I lost on that
occasion -- but the man who fought me, he went down
on that occasion as well; because finally he was
ruined by the cost of having sued me. Since then I
have never had anybody suing me for libel. Because
they learn the lesson that I fight.
I think that this
time the Canadian Government has learned the lesson
too: David Irving fights; he doesn't take it lying
down, and certainly not when they welch on a
bargain that is freely struck between the two of
us, as it was in Vancouver a week ago. They welched
on that; they ambushed me; they tricked me on the
Whirlpool Bridge. And now, by God, they are going
to have to pay for it.
Back to top