Eric Cordian writes:
> Colin writes:
>> I'm sure his number is smaller than 5,999,999.
> Perhaps it is. As I understand it, the major quibble is not over the
> number of Jews killed, but the degree to which industrial scale gas
> chamber executions contributed to the total.
Well, I don't actually know what Irving said, or what the trial
defendents said.
>> Well, I can understand why a Holocaust Denier would have a problem
>> with a career in history. I mean, if you can't get modern history
>> right, what good are you?
> As I understand it, the criteria for being a "Holocaust Denier" are that
> one deliberately falsifies history for which indisputable proof exists,
> with the political motive of attacking Jewish interests. Legitimate
> academic disputes and simple stupidity don't count.
I didn't realize that you needed a particular political motive to deny
the Holocaust. There are many reasons why people deny it. You don't
need to manufacture false evidence, when you can just ignore evidence.
>> Well, most people on this list think that British libel law is a
>> travesty, so you are not going to get any sympathizers here.
> Apparently, judges can also completely disregard the law anytime it suits
> them.
I haven't read the transcripts, but I can't really feel sorry for a
bad law not being upheld. If the defendents had actually been lying,
I would have a problem.
>> Anyway, my question for all your Holocaust Deniers is why you hate
>> that term. I think that it's a perfectly accurate description.
> I dislike the use of labels to smear people who disagree with the
> politically correct view. It's getting to the point where everyone who
> quibbles with the Jews' account of WWII is a "Holocaust Denier", everyone
> who has a problem with consent or pornography laws is a
> "Pedophile," everyone who likes the Second Amendment is a "Gun
> Nut," everyone who criticizes the ATF is an "anti-Government Militia
> Member."
So what label do you prefer? People are labeled all the time, and
it's up to them to choose which labels they want. I am a "Software
Engineer", not a "Geek". I am "Pro-Choice", not "Anti-Life". I am
"Anti-Censorship", not "Pro-Child Porn".
So what is the correct label for someone who does not believe that
Hitler intended to exterminate all the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups
that he considered inferior? I don't want to insult people.
> It's a lot easier to call someone names, than it is to argue with them
> over their perspective.
I agree. That's why I would rather know the correct term to use -- I
don't want to appear to be calling names when I am just trying to
objectively label someone.
> What's shocking is how well financed the defense was. They had
> meticulously documented everything Irving ever said on the subject, from
> speeches to small academic audiences, to offhand remarks at dinner
> parties.
This is shocking? If you were sued, wouldn't you bring everything you
could to bear against the person that sued you? If Irving had won,
I'm sure that they would have had to pay much more than they spend
defending themselves.
Personally, I would be willing to spend more money to fight than it
would cost to settle.
> And now they can send him the bill, label him, and prevent anything he
> says from ever having any crediblity again.
If he never sued them, this would never have happened. I can't feel
sorry for someone who brings suit and then complains that he lost.
> Something's wrong here.
I agree.
--
Colin
