Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Discovery/DL/0500.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:46:34+00:00

Document:
Littman's secret letter to Prof Deborah Lipstadt, Oct 3, 1996, enclosing this "sutdent report"
The murder of some six million Jews between the years 1939 and 1945 constituted one of the greatest tragedies in modern history. In recent years, attempts to deny the legitimacy of the Holocaust have compounded the suffering of all those touched by its horror. The memories of the dead. The survivors. Jews. Non-Jews. Thus, Holocaust denial has become one of the most insidious forms of anti-Semitism.1 Its landscape is dominated by fringe characters of the likes of Ernst Zündel, who are quickly dismissed as racists and anti-Semites. In the midst of these Holocaust deniers lies a considerably more dangerous source of hate, the self-styled "historian", David John Cawdell Irving.
This document is intended to serve as an educational tool, detailing the activities of David Irving and his goal of morally rehabilitating Adolf Hitler and the entire Nazi regime.
1 For a thorough review of the concept of Holocaust denial, please see Holocaust Denial: Bigotry in the Guise of Scholarship (Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1994).
2 "Historian doesn't mind being reviled as Hitler's PR man" LA Times News Service (London: 9 July 1996).
3 This is the central thesis of Irving's book. Hitler's War (London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1977).
4 David Irving interview with Mario Scialoja, L 'Espresso (26 July 1992), . . . . .
5 "History' s cache and carry" [interview, The Guardian (7 July 1992).
brand of 'speech' . Chapter II delves briefly into an examination of the academic merits of Irving's works. The methods employed by Irving to mold sources to fit his narrow viewpoint --and thus to disfigure the truth --are examined. Chapter III summarizes some of Irving's activities over the years, including speaking engagements, book tours and his involvement in the false news trial of German-Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.
The focus of this document, Chapter IV, provides David Irving with a stage to speak in his own words, with quotes from speeches he has given, articles he has written, and interviews he has conducted. These quotes serve as a clear example why he should not be allowed to disseminate his message of hate as freely in other public forums. Chapter V examines the legal ramifications of Irving's work, with a focus on his legal entanglements in Germany, England, Canada and Australia. Additionally, the question whether limitations on the right of free speech are appropriate are discussed in this penultimate section. This document then concludes with brief recommendations on how to combat the brand of anti-Semitism evinced by Irving and his like, those who seek to deny the existence of the Holocaust.
The shroud of credibility in which David Irving clothes himself is the call to arms for those who wish to strip him of his platform of hate. Irving's prolific writing and his thorough research through World War II archives afford him an air of respectability. This has made him a best-selling author in the U.K. and abroad. This vast audience falls prey to the half-truths and utter falsehoods he weaves into the voluminous works he produces. Critics repeatedly assail Irving's 'historical' theses, and dismiss his revisionist themes. The importance of such work is to deny Irving the legitimacy he so desires in his attempts to spread his anti-Semitic and racist messages. Therefore, a brief review of the 'academic'techniques he traditionally employs casts significant light on the danger that David Irving poses.
7 Quoted in Interview with David Irving by Mario Scialoja, L 'Espresso (26 July 1992) [translated from Italian].
Mr. Irving's essential point is that it is 'hard to establish a documentary link' between Hitler and the extermination program. This is certainly true. That whole program was veiled in secrecy and carried out at a safe distance. Himmler himself explicitly forbade all discussion of it and if it had to be mentioned, it was always disguised as 'resettlement' or 'transport to the east.' Therefore, we should not expect it to appear openly in formal documents Indeed, it is because of this official silence that our new anti-Semites brazenly declare that the Jews were not exterminated at all.
However, a historian must not only read the official documents, he must also look behind them. I believe that if we do this, Hitler's responsibility for the policy is clear. Of course the extermination was carried out by Himmler's SS, but could Himmler have mounted so vast a program without Hitler' s authority?
8 Hugh Trevor-Roper, Book Review, The Sunday Times Weekly Review (12 June 1977).
9 Eberhard Jäckel. David Irving 's Hitler: A faulty history dissected. Translation from German and comments by H. David Kirk. (Brentwood Bay, B.C.: Ben-Simon Publications, 1993). The essays were originally published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 25 August 1977 and 22 June 1978.
10 Foreword to Kirk's translation, by Robert Fulford, a Toronto journalist. Ibid. at 1.
11 In later years Irving began to renounce that the Holocaust occurred at all. A key turning point appears to be his testimony at Zündel's trial in Toronto in 1988, where his attention was first drawn to the infamous Leuchter report on the gas chambers at Auschwitz. His testimony at the trial indicates that he had begun to revise his view that mass killings occurred at all. This is examined below.
12 Other works include: Fleming, G: Hitler and the Final Solution (Berkeley: University of Cal. Press, 1984); Sydnor, C W, "The Selling of Adolf Hitler: David Irving's Hitler 's War" (1979) 12 Central European History 169; Broszat. M, "Hitler and the Genesis of the 'Final Solution': An Assessment of David Irving's Theses" (1979) 13 Yad Vashem Studies 73; and, Lipstadt. DE; Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993).
13 Jäckel. supra note 9 at 21-22.
14 For specific references, please see Jäckel's essay, supra note 9 at 22-29.
Nonetheless, sufficient documentation exists to satisfy most other historians and researchers that Hitler was indeed aware of the fate of the Jews. Jäckel refers to notes by Alfred Rosenberg, minister-designate for the eastern occupied territories, speeches made by Hitler himself46, and explicit diary entries by Goebbels. Particularly remarkable is the last of these sources, if only for its thorough accuracy and vivid description of the Nazi apparatus constructed to deal with the Jewish problem. Despite these sources, along with numerous others, including Hitler's personally signed last will and testament, Irving managed to construct his own reality with Hitler's innocence unimpugned.
In response to an Irving letter alleging "disappeared" documents shedding light on the matter, Jäckel published the second of his essays in mid-1978. This short piece refutes Irving's subsequent claim, and serves as a classic example of Irving's archival gymnastics in uncovering supporting evidence for his controversial views. At issue is a document detailing instructions from Nazi government minister Lammers that the Führer had ordered that the solution to the Jewish question be delayed until the end of the war. Irving seized this document, heralding it as proof of Hitler's benevolence in attempting to delay the mass murder of the Jewish people. However, a more intricate examination, such as that conducted by Jäckel, provides the true meaning of Irving's 'find'.
Jäckel' s research into the events surrounding the document in question reveal its true meaning, one quite distinct from that Irving attributes to it. In fact, the document refers to the question of the legal position of "Mischlinge" (part-Jews) --Hitler's order was made to the Minister of Justice, instructing to put the matter on the back burner until the end of the war. Thus, the reference in Irving's document merely illustrated Hitler's lack of tolerance for the machinations of jurists, and their legal exercises into the status of German citizens with partial Jewish ancestry. It did not, as Irving suggested, reflect the Führer's benevolence towards the Jewish people. Jäckel clearly refutes this proposition by transporting the evidence from Irving's narrow vision to its true historical context.
16 Jäckel refers to a December 1, 1941 address to dinner guests: "Many Jews are quite unaware of the destructive nature of their very existence. But whoever destroys life courts death. and that is exactly what is happening to them!" Supra note 9 at 29.
17 Please see supra note 9. The following is a brief recap of Kirk's thorough academic analysis of Irving's work, and a complete reading of Kirk's essay is highly recommended.
18 The headings are taken from Kirk's essay.
19 Kirk, supra note 9 at 41.
20 R. v. Zündel 7 W C.B. (2d) 26 (Ont. District Court), Thomas D.C.J., trial transcript at 964344 and 964849.
22 For example, see Irving's testimony in Zündel supra note 20 at 9558.
with a seemingly fleeting phrasing, Irving is able to shift the ultimate responsibility from Hitler to other members of the Nazi elite.
This technique Irving acquired directly from the Nazi regime he so admires. With euphemisms such as "resettlement" for expropriation and ghetto-ization, and "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" for the Nazis' mass extermination of Jews, the Nazis managed to sanitize their conduct. Similarly, Irving's phraseology seeks to legitimize his revisionist slant on history by enticing the reader with catchy(??) titles, glossing over the sinister aspects of his works.
One final item addressed by Kirk is Jäckel' s treatment of Irving's piece de resistance, the handwritten note by Himmler detailing Hitler's order to stop the liquidation of a transport of Berlin Jews.24 Jäckel was suspicious of Irving's claim that this note indicated Hitler's desire to curtail the mass extermination of the Jews. Subsequent archival research supports Jäckel's cynicism. Lucy Dawidowicz's research draws on the first two lines in the note written by Himmler, revealing that the purpose for stopping the transport was to capture one Dr. Jekelius, who may have been the son of the Soviet Foreign Minister.25 Thus, with this additional information, Jäckel's objection to Irving's interpretation of the note is strengthened. By revealing all the facts, and placing the note in its proper context, Irving's version of the facts succumbs to the falsehoods that it was built upon.
23 Zündel, supra note 20 at 9621-24.
24 See above, at note 20.
23 Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) at 34-38.
Irving's revisionist work came to the forefront with the publication of The Destruction of Dresden in 1963, and his claim that some 250,000 people died as a result of the Allied bombings. This figure was later revised by Irving, who apologized for the incorrect, excessive death tolls he claimed to have quoted from World War II documents.30 The possible source of this revisionist stance may be traced to correspondence between Irving and one Studienrat H. Dolinsky, who claimed to have been a Wehrmacht radio monitor during the war. Dolinsky's claim was that he had overheard a transmission indicating that the World Jewish Congress had demanded Dresden's liquidation as a consequence of the quashing of the Warsaw ghetto uprising.31 These unfounded claims appeared to have aroused Irving's interest, and the connection to Dolinsky may have enabled Irving to forge some inroads into the East German archives. Additionally, this exchange may have been Irving's first encounter with the power held by newly discovered, and thus difficult to disprove, information from primary sources. This is one possible explanation for Irving's subsequent obsession with archival research as the basis for his historical writings.
26 Clifford Luton, "The mild Fascist' pulls a fast one" The Daily Mail (1 May 1959).
28 See Irving's response to reviewer Kai Bird in The New Statesman (8 May 1981).
29 The Daily Mail (1 May 1959).
30 Letter by David Irving, The London Times (7 July 1966).
31 This exchange was revealed by Irving via correspondence with C.C. Aronsfeld. curator of the Weiner Library in London, during 1960-61.
32 "Law Report March 4 1971: £40.000 libel damages upheld for 'outrageous conduct"' The Times (5 March 1971).
Irving was the release of Hitler's War in 1977 and the furor that arose in his attempted rehabilitation of the Führer. In association with its publication Irving presented an offer of £1000 to any person that could present documentary evidence that Hitler knew of the Holocaust. With the release of the book David Irving's prominence rose and he embarked on numerous speaking tours to promote Hitler's War." Notably , at this point in time, Irving still accepted the Holocaust at face value, merely shifting the blame for it to Hitler's underlings. Hence, his popularity among neo-Nazi groups was limited by his acceptance of the genocide of the Jewish people during the war.
33 Included in his speaking engagements were debates with historians. including Eberhard Jäckel. (See Die National Zeitung (14 July 1978)). In addition, his popularity and publicity in Germany expanded with dates in Stuttgart, Munich, and the Frankfurt Book Fair.
34 Some examples are 30 March 1979 and 1 February 1980. For quotes from subsequent Irving visits to the Clarendon Club. see Part IV.
35 Some instances include: paying tribute at the funeral of Hans Ulrik Rudel. a famed Luftwaffe pilot; a speaking tour of Germany in March 1982 organized by Dr. Gerhard Frey, editor of the neo-Nazi weekly Deutsche National Zeitung, an address at the Institute for Historical Review Convention in Los Angeles on 3, 4 September 1983; etc.
If nothing else, Uprising should lay to rest the charitable assumption made by gentleman historians that men like Irving would never stoop to dressing up their evidence. Irving not only has a consistent record of getting things wrong, but he clearly can't keep his noxious political affinities from turning his history into propaganda.
See Kai Bird, "The secret policemen's historian" New Statesman (3 April 1981).
" See David Cannadine, "Winston Agonistes" The New York Review of Books (15 June 1989).
A pivotal event in the life of David Irving was his appearance at Ernst Zündel' s false news trial in April. 1988.38 As evident in Irving's testimony at the trial, he had departed from his mere claim of Hitler's innocence to a deeper questioning of the existence of gas chambers and the genocide of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis.39 This' revelation' was triggered by the Irving' s introduction to the Leuchter Report.40 In his subsequent foreword to the Report, Irving adopted Zündel's claim that the Holocaust was a "swindle". utilized by Jews to extract moneys from Germany in order to finance the state of Israel. As such, Irving had made the leap from Nazi apologist to a full-fledged Holocaust denier.
Since the Zündel trial, Irving has maintained that while he does question the events of World War II, he is not a "Holocaust denier". Rather, he has refused "to swallow the whole Holocaust package that is now on offer."41 Irving's research in the late 1980s attempted to substantiate his claims that the number of Jews murdered were minimal. In this vein, he introduced Tass reports claiming 46 Auschwitz 'death books' existed, and which detailed only 74,000 deaths.42 In addition, Irving deleted all reference to "factories of death" in the revised edition of Hitler 's War. Armed with this new material, Irving continued his speaking tours throughout 1989 and 1990.
39 Irving has described this change of heart on several occasions. including at a speech in Fredericton. New Brunswick in March 1989.
40 This report, by Fred Leuchter, was commissioned by Zündel for his 1988 trial. Leuchter ventured to Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to conduct 'scientific' tests on the levels of Zyklon B in the gas chambers. Finding minimal traces, Leuchter concluded no gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews. and that the story of gas chambers at Nazi death camps were a hoax. In actuality, Leuchter's results are understandable, given the history of expansion of Auschwitz and the varied uses of the current gas chambers" on display (the ones actually utilized were destroyed by the Nazis prior to the end of the war). In addition, Leuchter misrepresented himself as a gas chamber expert. despite lacking any qualifications as a chemist or as an engineer. Despite the clear evidence rejecting the results, the Leuchter Report remains a popular source for Holocaust deniers worldwide.
41 David Irving, Letter to the Editor. The Sunday Times (24 September 1989).
42 Irving neglected to mention that the books were an incomplete record, covering only part of 1942.
43 Christie became known for his defence of Ernst Zündel and other prominent neo-Nazis.
44 The documentary "Dispatches: The truth sets us free" (UK Channel 4, 27 November 1991) displays Irving in this light. in addition. Videos show Irving addressing youths shouting "Sieg Heil", and Irving praising the work of the great German martyr, Rudolf Hess. ("This Week", ITV 28 November 1991).
Recent years have seen Irving maintain his extensive speaking dates in Britain and the United States. Legal sanctions have limited his ability to address audiences in person in several countries, including Canada, South Africa, Australia and Germany. Therefore, Irving has produced several video cassettes as a means of disseminating his views to a wider audience. In particular, this was his response when his entry into Australia was refused on several occasions during 1991-1993.
45 Also as a result of his statements, Irving was convicted and fined for offending the spirit of the dead by denying the Holocaust in Germany. For a more extensive discussion of this matter. see Part V.
46 Both these events are discussed in much greater detail in Part V of this document.
47 David Gardner and Justin Davenport, "Goebbels war of words" Daily Mail (4 July 1992) p. 9; Fiona Barton, "Historian mobbed by protesters" The Mail on Sunday (5 July 1992); Rosie Waterhouse. "Jews attack publisher of Irving book," The Independent (6 July 1992) p. 3.
48 Alan Travis, "Tories tax Neil on Goebbels" The Guardian (8 July 1992).
49 Another controversy arising from this episode dealt with the involvement of François Genoud, a banker and lawyer who controls the literary estates of Goebbels, Hitler and Bormann, and a man who has funded Nazi war criminals for decades. Genoud had reportedly been paid some £17, 360 by The Daily Mail to publish the diaries. Genoud also claimed that Irving and the Sunday Times had not received his authority to publish the Goebbels diary. Public contempt arose from the alleged involvement of Genoud, whose ideology he summed up as: "Things would have been much better if Hitler had won." See: David Harrison and John Merritt, "Hitler agent paid for diary rights" The Observer (12 July 1992); Paul Keel, "Banker is set to sue over Nazi's diaries" The Mail on Sunday (12 July 1992).
50 See Part V for further details.
Faced with mounting opposition and limited finances, Irving has once again attempted to portray himself as a mainstream historian. He now concedes that up to three or four million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, but still insists that only about 600,000 to one million of them died in the death camps.55 Nonetheless, he remains the same flawed author he has always been, with the same jaded viewpoints. and a biased recounting of history. This was proven with Irving's release of Goebbels. His writings still prompt virulent opposition, as his mission of obscuring the truth about the Holocaust appears to be unrelenting.
51 "Hitler's PR man", supra note 2. See also, "Publisher drops book on Goebbels" Associated Press (New York: 5 April 1996).
52 Sean O'Neill, "The strange life of a much-reviled man" The Daily Telegraph (13 April 1996). See also Gitta Sereny, "Spin Time for Hitler" The Observer (21 April 1996) The Review section, page 2. This latter review triggered Irving's launch of a libel suit against the Observer newspaper.
53 Peter Ellingsen, "Historian with a past --David Irving" Sydney Morning Herald (22 June 1996).
54 For a review of Goebbels, see Robert Harris, "The man who loved Adolf Hitler" The Evening Standard (1 April 1996).
Anyone, however, who wants to learn about the political acts of one of this century' s most able and most dangerous men, should remember that what they are reading is one brilliant propagandist --one man who bates and loves obsessively --writing about another.
55 Severin Carrel, "Cold-calling author hits the big chill" Scotland on Sunday (12 May 1996). See also David Irving interview on station 2GB, Australian radio (27 July 1995).
56 Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University professor, in Frank Rich. "Hitler's Spin Artist" The New York Times (3 April 1996).
protected, and why he should not be allowed to inflict harm on groups the subject of which his revisionist views attack. Therefore, despite what David Irving may later claim. what he says really does speak volumes about the man.
When my critics have done the original research that I have .. I shall heed to their objection, but they haven't, so I won't.
I'm afraid I have to say I wouldn't consider what a survivor of Treblinka could tell me in 1988 to be credible evidence. ... I would prefer the evidence of somebody who goes to the site with expert knowledge now, and carries out concrete examinations to the very human and fallible human memories after a tragic wartime experience forty years after the event.
... without the tragedy of the Third Reich, the State of Israel would probably not exist and in that respect he [Hitler] was doing the Jewish nation a favour.
I don't say the Holocaust is a hoax. What I say is the Auschwitz gas chambers are a hoax, which narrows it down very dramatically. I'm talking about magnitude and methods, but I'm not denying the Holocaust happened. I'm not even going to say Jews did not die in gas chambers. I think it may have happened in a small and experimental way.
57 See Sereny, supra note 52.
What I am saying is that I am not denying that the Holocaust happened in some degree. I am saying that there were a large series of unrelated atrocities. But the idea of the Holocaust mythology, Adolf Hitler ordered the killing of six million Jews in Auschwitz in simple terms, that, I think, is now very suspect.
Yes, hundreds of thousands were killed, but there were no factories of death. All that is a blood libel against the German people.
... it came out that the so-called gas chambers were constructed many years after the war for the tourists.
The gas chambers were invented in November 1942 by the secret service of Churchill's War Ministry for reasons of propaganda against the Germans. It was a masterpiece. The testimonies that you [interviewer Mario Scialoja] are quoting are of Jews, and do not count, because the Jews are parties to the cause.
... if a year from now the gas chamber legend collapses, what will that mean for Israel? Israel is drawing millions of dollars each year from the German taxpayer, provided by the German government as reparation for the gas chambers. It is also drawing millions a year from American taxpayers, who put up with it because of the way Israelis or the Jews suffered. No one's going to like it when they find out that for 50 years they have been believing a legend based on baloney.
After VE-Day, countless more ... were culled from the Displaced Persons camps in liberated Europe by the Haganah and whisked into new homes, lives and identities in the Middle East, leaving their old, discarded identities behind as "missing persons".
We're all Holocaust survivors, every one of us who was born in 1939 or from then until 1945. We're all Holocaust survivors. We don't go around dining out on that particular menu. The ones who suffered in the Holocaust are the ones who died, not the ones who survived. But the Holocaust survivors are the ones who are earning of course.
... I'll say you didn't [suffer]. You survived. You are a survivor. By definition you didn't suffer. Not half as much as those who died. Those who did die in the so called gas chamber, gas ovens, or cremated, or died in the plague, or epidemics, or whatever in Auschwitz. They suffered. You didn't. You're the one making the money. Explain to me this. Why are you people have made all the money, but Australian soldiers who suffered for five years in Japanese prison camps haven't got a bent nickel out of it. ... They know I am going to be tasteless about the whole matter.
... he [Günther Deckert) had done what he did in Germany's interests and because he like many other Germans was being thoroughly fed up with what was being done to Germany by Israel in the sense of continually pestering them for financial compensation. From the actual culprits and perpetrators of the Holocaust. From their sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters. And the judges said in their verdict, obviously they had a certain degree of sympathy for Deckert, having done it for these reasons. They understood why he had done it.
The German government has egg over its face because the German government has for the last forty years been paying nearly $1 billion a year to the state of Israel in reparations which now has turned out to be a fake gas chamber. That's basically what it is all about. The German government is trying to conceal the fact as long as possible. And they use increasingly vicious methods.
This entire extraordinary fight. I have to admit that this is what I find the most thought provoking matter. I never used to believe in international conspiracies. It is not a conspiracy really. It is a network. It is a network of incredible complexity and influence and forcefulness.
58 Deckert, the former leader of Germany's far-right National Democratic Party, was ordered to serve additional prison time in 1996 for proclaiming, at a public appearance with David Irving, that the Nazi genocide of Jew during World War never occurred. See "Neo-Nazi guilty of inciting hatred" Toronto Star (22 June 1996).
... a mob of one, or two or three thousand demonstrators. All the scum. The homosexuals, the gypsies, the lesbians, the Jews, the blacks, the immigrants. All coming together in a paid mob. To harass, to frighten, to intimidate. Rather like the scum here today. .
... Plebiscite like a woman . . she says no, but means yes.
They [women] haven't produced any great creative talent.
... [they are] less intelligent and less developed than the Third World.
Nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport or at a station or at a seaport and I see [a] black family there. ... I think that is the way God planned it. and that's the way it should be. When I see these families arriving at London airport, I'm happy, but I'm happier when I see them leaving London airport.
The same lies printed in your pages may just possibly be believed. You have a reputation for getting things right more often than not.
There is enormous envy and rivalry and jealousy in the world of historians. The knives are out. They don't like me getting stuff that they don't get.
... such immense pressure from, you know who, from over our traditional enemies. Pressure not just from the advertising industry, pressure not just from the self-appointed ugly, greasy, nasty perverted representatives of that community in Britain.
... This odd and motley and ugly and perverse and greasy, and slimy community of anti-fascists that run the severe risk of making the very word fascist respectable [by] their own appearance.
This is how ludicrous it is. All the facts are on our side. And yet the media, Hollywood, newspapers, the journalists, all belong to this tottering conspiracy of silence against us.
People ask me if I'm anti-Semitic. I say, not yet. But it's a mighty and a manful struggle not to become anti-Semitic. I have to remind myself every day, turn the other cheek.
... I do speak with some authority. I am very well known as a historian. I've written 30 books which are in most of the libraries. I do my work in the archives like any respectable historian should and my views do attract a certain amount of attention. They do hold water and I think this is why they pay attention to me where they don't pay attention to the extreme neo-Nazi rabble.
... it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent and critical student of modern history why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as former gas chambers.
This section of the document will deal with two specific issues: first, the legal difficulties that David Irving has encountered as a result of broadcasting his revisionist ideas59; and second, the question of whether these legal limitations placed on him are justified that is, the question of whether limits on freedom of speech are warranted in specific situations. Given Irving's legal encounters, it is apparent that some jurisdictions have decided that limiting his brand of hateful speech is necessary in order to protect the wider interests of the people situated in that jurisdiction.
59 Note that Irving has also encountered difficulties in New Zealand, South Africa, and Austria, among other countries. See, for example, "Ban on Nazi Speech" Yorkshire Evening Post (7 November 1989) on Austria's banning of Irving.
60 For further reading on the German law, see E. Stein. "History Against Free Speech: The New German Law Against the 'Auschwitz' --and other 'Lies'" (1986) 85 Michigan Law Review 277.
61 "Fined for Auschwitz lies" The Globe and Mail (5 June 1992).
63 "Germany expels David Irving" Toronto Star (11 November 1993); "Neo-Nazi barred" Toronto Sun (11 November 1993).
64 "Irving plea fails" Telegraph (23 March 1996); "Ban on historian upheld" Arizona Star (23 March 1996); "Revisionist historian barred from Germany" Toronto Star (23 March 1996).
63 See the reasons of Lord Denning, M.R in Broome v. Cassell & Co.  AC 1027.
66 The dispute concerned a DM150,000 advance on royalties from the publishers. Rowohlt Verlag, for a biography of Winston Churchill, with the publishers asserting that Irving had failed to meet the deadline for the second volume.
67 Stephen Ward, "High Court frees jailed right-wing author" The Independent (22 February 1994); "Irving home from jail" The Times (22 February 1994).
I have not found this an easy decision because I have made it clear more than once during the course of today --and I adhere to the conclusions that I have been forming and expressing --that I am afraid I do not accept the explanations appearing in his affidavit; that is to say, his explanation to me that he had not the faintest idea that any of this was going on --that includes that he had not the faintest idea that the German judgment was even registered in this country I am afraid I do not accept that for one moment.
Weiner continued by stating that Irving's "sympathies and intentions have no place in our society." Irving's response, through lawyer Doug Christie, was to institute an action for libel against Weiner. The suit was eventually discontinued by Irving.
David Irving's next encounter with Canadian authorities occurred in October and November of 1992, when he was deported from Canada. He was arrested on 29 October 1992, and ordered out of Canada by midnight of the 1st of November by adjudicator P.A. Tetrault.70 The basis for deportation was Irving's failure to inform immigration officials upon entry at Niagara Falls that he would be staying in Canada for longer than two weeks, and that he would be visiting British Columbia and other provinces.71 Despite agreeing to the departure order, Irving failed to leave Canada and was arrested by Canadian immigration officers early in the morning of 2 November 1992. Irving claimed that his entry to the U.S. was denied, despite his holding a valid visa, due to some libelous material inserted about him on the computers of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.72 This resulted in another immigration hearing before adjudicator Kenneth Thomson.
69 "Statement by the Honourable Gerry Weiner on Speaking Tour of David Irving" (26 October 1990).
70 Adjudicator's Reasons for Decision. David Irving, File 9530-02-7114 (Vancouver: 30 October 1992).
71 Such actions constituted an offence under s.27(2)(g) of the Canadian Immigration Act.
72 This was Irving's claim in an affidavit of 8 February 1994, concerning an Australian visa application.
78 Adjudicator's Reasons for Decision, David Irving, File 9543-8079 (Niagara Falls: 13 November 1992) at page 8.
75 "British author threatening to sue Sarnia native, immigration officials" Sarnia Observer (9 August 1993).
On 7 December 1992 David Irving applied for a Business Visitor (Short Stay) Visa.76 The purpose of his proposed trip, promoted by the Veritas Publishing Co., was to espouse the virtues of his latest books. To Irving's dismay, the application was rejected by the Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs on 8 February 1993.77 Mr. Justice French dismissed an application by Irving to review the Minister's decision. However, further appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was allowed on 16 September 1993, and the decisions of' the Minister were ordered subject to review7' On 3 May 1994 the Minister refused Irving's original application in addition to refusing a subsequent application made on 3 June 1993.
76 For an exhaustive review of the early segments of the litigation, see Laurence W. Maher, "Migration Act Visitor Entry Controls and Free Speech: The Case of David Irving" (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 358.
77 The relevant dates and the extensive material available to the Minister were reviewed by Mr. Justice French in Irving v. Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic .4ffairs (1993) 115 ALR 125 French J.
79 The time between Irving's applications resulted in different regulations applying to each of the respective applications. Thus, the decisions rendered by the Minister vary slightly, as does the Court's treatment on appeal, due to the question of the precise nature of the regulations applicable. See Irving v. Minister of State for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, No. WAG63 of 1994 (Federal Court of Australia) Carr J. (31 August 1995).
81 Sitting on the case were Lee, Davies and Nicholson 31. See: "Controversial historian wants ban lifted" The Canberra Times (22 March 1996); Wendy Caccetia, "Irving puts case for visa" The West Australian (22 March 1996); "Author in last-ditch entry bid" The Daily Telegraph (22 March 1996); "Irving on the Attack" The Australian (22 March 1996).
Suffice it to say, there exists no easy solution. The answer must be based on the nature of the situation involved, and an examination of the most appropriate response in that context. In the case of David Irving, and his brand of Holocaust denial, the optimal response is to cease providing him with a forum to convey his skewed version of history, and to negate his attempts to obliterate the memory of millions of victims.
82 Maher, supra note 76 at 360.
83 This includes countries such as Canada. the U.K.. Australia. and New Zealand. See Mari J. Matsuda, "Public Response to Racial Speech: Considering the Victim's Story" (1989) 87 Michigan Law Review2320 at 2346-2348.
In a society that expresses its moral judgments through the law, and in which the rule of law and the use of law are characteristic responses to social phenomena, this absence of laws against racist speech is telling.
87 "Freedom of Speech and Holocaust Denial" (1987) 8 Cardozo Law Review 559 at 566. Panel members included: Irwin Cotler, Alan Dershowitz, Arthur Berney, and Gerald Tishler.
89 Whitney v. California 274 US 357 at 377 (1927).
99 "Freedom of Speech", supra note 87 at 572.
In the broader context, it is vital to consider whose interests are sought to be protected. Holocaust Survivors, their families, and families of those that did not survive have the right not be assailed by lies and accusations in their own neighbourhoods. Thus, if others are intent on succumbing to the allure of David Irving, they may purchase his books or videos --but, they should not be allowed to force him into unwanting locales to inflict harm on the psyche of residents who reject his revisionist brand of history. This point of view has been expressed by numerous people in response to proposed visits by Irving, through demonstrations94, newspaper opinions95, letters to the editor96, and public denouncements.97 They take the position of preferring limiting one party's right to freedom of speech rather than infringe on the rights of many to peace of mind and personal security. This involves a question of balancing -- but, with the minimal societal benefits associated with the publication of David Irving's views, the scales will always be tipped in favour of restricting his ability to disseminate anti-Semitic messages under the guise of his revisionist version of history.
93 Kent Greenawalt, "Free Speech in the United States and Canada" (1992)55 Law and Contemporary Problems5at32.
95 Same examples include: Piers Brendon, "The wrong man for the job" The Independent (5 July 1992); Richard Littlejohn, "Irving lies leave Nazi taste in the mouth" The Sun (20 July 1992); Peter Elgin, "Blamed again: Nazi message is a betrayal of our common humanity" Kitchener-Waterloo Record (2 September 1992); Editorial "Holocaust deniers abuse free speech" Kitchener-Waterloo Record (1 September 1992); Denise Helm, "Survivors of death camp argue free speech no defence for lies" Victoria Times-Colonist (31 October 1992).
96 Some examples include: Robert Ferguson, "Politics not history behind the decoding of the diaries" The Guardian (9 July 1992); Sigmund Sobolewski, "Ex-prisoner has no doubt Jews gassed" Toronto Star (11 October 1992); Nate Leipeiger, "Holocaust survivor speaks out" The Globe and Mail (21 November 1992) 97 See: Andre Picard, "Carleton cancels talk by British historian" The Globe and Mail (7 March 1989); "David Irving and Holocaust Denial", motion presented by Mr. Hugh Dykes et al, before the British parliament on 20 June 1989; Australia, Parliamentary Debate (Senate), 17 December 1992, 5345 (Senator V.W. Bourne).
98 See O'Neill, supra note 52.
99 Sereny, supra note 52.

References: v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.