Should Holocaust denial be a crime?

I completely agree with Mr Macintyre’s comments for Britain and the USA. However, not for Austria. It is a shame to say for me as an Austrian, but we still need such legal barriers, because Nazism has not been entirely rejected in my country. As long as VIP-politicians like the rabble-rouser Haider can address SS veterans meetings to sing their praise, we cannot have the full freedom enjoyed by other nations in this respect. Hans Stegbuchner, Vienna, Austria

It is certainly true that Austria has been immorally lax about the persecution of Nazi war criminals. However, this does not excuse David Irving, who has quite obviously ignored a law imposed to prevent the resurrection of racist political movements in our country. Independent law courts will decide whether he has digressed the borders of free speech or not. Michael Krebs, Wiener Neustadt, Austria

Free speech may be a mainstay of democracy, but it stops at the point of crying “fire!” in a crowded theatre. Holocaust denial is not just a matter of free speech. It enables those 40-odd Nazi murderers still at large to remain so. It encourages anti-Semitism and the violence that goes with it. Holocaust denial is one of those things that simply cannot be included under the right to free speech. Name and address withheld

I applaud your fair and insightful article on the subject of the imprisonment of the “historian” David Irving. Wholehearted agreement is the only sentiment that this particular Austrian can profess. However, it is highly unlikely that the laws against Holocaust denial in Austria and Germany will ever be repealed. History forbids it, and political realities ensure that only a government with suicidal tendencies would attempt to restore free speech completely. While I would love to argue that the ruling parties in Austria won’t change the law because they are acutely aware of the historical burden and particular moral responsibility arising from the awful deeds of previous generations, this would be utter humbug. Not only have a good number of putative war criminals been allowed to go unbothered by governments of every hue, it is also a sad indictment of the status quo that while an example is being made of the Holocaust denier Irving, a member of the Austrian government questions the relevance of defining parts of the constitution, abjures minority rights enshrined in international treaties and publicly mocks the supreme court - and it is not even clear that he will be stripped of his ministerial brief. David Irving is a scapegoat. You are entirely right to call for his release, and your defence of free expression is all the more laudable for the repugnance of the opinions in question. However, allow me to confess the hope that David Irving is subjected to a mortifyingly tedious trial and a damp cell for just a little while before they let him go. Matthias Mennel, Munich

I have a friend who became a Jesuit, while his brothers and sisters and became anti-Catholic born-again Christians. His answer to their extreme outbursts is to ask for more, “Really, why do you say that?”; “That’s an interesting interpretation, tell me more about it,” and so on, until their slogans disappear into a morass of circular logic and foolishness. Given true freedom of speech, Irving, and other ideologues, will disappear into the same morass. Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s dad used to say, “Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.” I say; don’t silence Irving, let him speak so we can prove him wrong. Name and address withheld

Ben Macintyre’s analysis is largely accurate. Austria has a poor record when it comes to dealing with its own, be they Holocaust criminals or the present generation of deniers. Although Holocaust denial is a crime, the law is seldom invoked against Austrian citizens. After World War Two, Austria introduced a system called proporz (proportion), which was designed to prevent a return to Nazi extremism. Proporz allows the two main political parties to carve up the whole economy between them. This reaches absurd depths as we have the equivalent of the AA for conservatives and the RAC for the socialists! Proporz may have been understandable during the post war years but is it appropriate now? Ironically, by locking out the far right, proporz contributed to frustration and the rise of the far right Freedom Party. Last year, Jörg Haider left the FP to form a new party which has attracted minimal support. The new FP leader, Heinz Christian Strache expects to increase its representation in this year’s general election with a strong anti-foreigner and anti-EU campaign. As far as David Irving is concerned, he needs a lead counsel from outside Austria who will use the opportunity of the trial to expose hypocrisy in this country. Yes, freedom of speech should be defended and this means that Irving’s views need to be rigorously opposed. Name and address withheld

Jailing David Irving and turning him into a free speech martyr is surely counter-productive. However, simply ignoring him is also problematic. He may have been speaking to a bunch of crackpots in a cellar in Austria, but his malignant lies have wider distribution. People who weren’t in that cellar still hear the lies; they become a part of the general hum of misinformation that circles the world. So, for example, the story that all the Jews evacuated the World Trade Center just before the disaster, or that AIDS is the result of deliberate bio warfare against Africans, stay within public sight, even if in a small corner of the screen. They never quite go away if just ignored, but can leap back into prominence at a moment’s notice. My solution? Education. When a crank like Irving appears, we must confront his lies with truth. It’s an exhausting process, but by meeting his untruths their flimsiness becomes more apparent. If we just ignore them, the ignorant will eventually believe that we have no counter-arguments. Irving never fatigues in his quest. Lovers of truth need to be at least as steadfast. Michael Walsh, Chicago

David Irving’s opinions are highly unpopular but he is surely entitled to express them. He is not a criminal and it cannot be right to hold him in prison for over two months pending trial for remarks allegedly made in 1989. I agree that he should be released. Name and address withheld

Jailing Irving is counter-productive because it suggests that his denial is dangerous, which in turn suggests that there may be some truth in it. They could even create a “far-right” martyr out of him. Do those jailing him even realise this? It is paradoxical that the Austrian government must repress someone who says that a previous repressive Austrian government did not in fact repress anyone. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is simply that freedom of information rather than repression of information (or information providers whether misguided/malevolent or not) is the answer. Rudy Parker, Boston, MS, USA

One doesn’t have to begin a defence for David Irving’s rights with an excuse and an apology. The fact is that even if it were Satan rotting in a dungeon, and Irving is far from the devil the media makes him out to be, he would still have the right to fundamental freedoms and human rights. We need Irving. Liberty needs dissent to thrive. I admire his audacity, his unique writing style, his provocative tickling of my brain and his talent to make me think and question. I have never heard him advocate violence and do not see him as a danger. I wish I could say the same for those who wish to tell us what we may read, see or hear. They are the true dangers in a free society. Where are the civil libertarians? Lee Buhalis, Pembroke, Maine, USA

Adolf Eichman, one of the accused architects of the Holocaust, did not deny it, so who is Mr Irving to do so? Robert Piller, Geneva, Switzerland



Of course David Irving should be freed. Muzzling people is no way to defeat an odious point of view. All these “Holocaust denial” prohibitions ever succeed in doing is romanticising the target. Even the usual canard about yelling “fire” in a theatre has no application here, as Irving has no history of promoting violence. Jason Stern, Washington DC, USA

Austria’s new democracy is still very fragile and is treated with great scepticism by the older generation. There is a Nazi skeleton hidden in the closet of virtually every family. The embers of the fascist past have never been quite extinguished and are constantly being stoked by the likes of Jorg Haider, who is deeply mistrusted and feared by Labour and Liberal politicians. No responsible Austrian Government can welcome David Irving and let him roam across the country making inflammatory speeches and recreating the past in his own repulsive image, whitewashing the hideous crimes committed. He may be a litigious crank a mischief-maker, a loose cannon, but for a country which co-founded and actively participated in the Holocaust he is a stark reminder of all the things they wish to forget. Austrians are not born democrats, however, many young people are trying very hard to understand the meaning of democracy. They are making an effort to come to terms with the crimes their elders have committed and to understand the motivation of their actions. They should be encouraged and not betrayed by Irving’s repulsive views. Name and Address withheld



So David Irving lies? Has anyone listened to Parliament lately? Name and address withheld

Why should denial of the Holocaust be a crime? There are people who think that the world is flat; God does not exist; the Sun goes around the Earth or the world was created in six days. These are more fundamental things. Vinay Mehra, Purley

Real freedom of speech seems to provide certain individuals with real problems. Your columnist witters on about its importance but begins by saying that “David Irving ... languishes in an Austrian jail. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released.” Everything about this paragraph tells me that Ben MacIntyre’s protestations about free speech are meaningless. He comes across as a vindictive individual desperately trying to portray his liberal credentials. I am very pro-Israel and pro-Jewish and always have been but I do not find David Irving’s comments repulsive or abhorrent. As they are not true and as I am an adult, they do not concern me. They merely indicate that David Irving is a fool and that is entirely his business. It is twisted and convoluted reactions like Ben MacIntyre’s that are the real problem with regard to free speech. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

Irving’s imprisonment in Austria is not only an insult to free speech, it may give an impression that someone has something to hide, thus encouraging further Holocaust conspiracy theories. Maurice Sherlock, Colwyn Bay

Would the Austrians jail me for claiming the world was flat? Or professing any other idiotic notion? Mr Irving’s views only have as much substance as we allow them, and by considering them grounds for imprisonment the Austrian government has apparently granted them far more weight than they deserve. The danger is not in his ramblings, but in a hypersensitive reaction to them. Dominic Graham de Montrose, London

If people like David Irving are crazy or evil then why not make the answers to his allegations widely available and allow people to reach their own conclusions? Why does Irvings opponents feel so complelled to lock him up if they know that they can destroy all his arguments with simple facts? Nothing should ever be taboo from debate. Anything and everything should be open to debate. Just look throughout history to see how many ‘facts’ are now confirmed as myths. Name and address withheld

I strongly support his right to free speech, despite the fact that my grandparents, aunts and uncles were murdered in Auchwitz. What troubles me, though, is that these and similar rantings throughout the world are used by extremists as justification for dehumanising future victims. By allowing racist speech, are we making it easier for young radicals like the London bombers to ignore the human casualties resulting from their actions? Name and address withheld

I consider myself a liberal but I find the issue of Holocaust denial very problematic. On the one hand, it is not the role of the state to set out what are facts and what is open to debate. How we arrive at the number of six million cannot be a state secret but must be public and open to challenge. Moreover, if the State pounces on those who deny the Holocaust or claim that Jews run the country/took us to war, then others might be more likely to see reason in these (absurd) arguments. Ironically though, those who challenge the Holocaust, whether neo-Nazi sympathiser like Irving or Islamic radicals like Abu Hamza or the President of Iran, are the ones must likely to see killing Jews as desirable. The principle of free speech rests on the notion that, through open public debate, rational people are most likely to arrive at the truth. However, by preaching Holocaust denial in mosques or neo-Nazi rallies or education syllabuses, the likelier result is anti-Semitism rather the truth. Protection of citizens comes before freedom of speech in a democracy; we must consider carefully whether this public debate endangers our minorities or not. Anthony Tricot, Oxford

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, even if they’re wrong. David Lesle, Crieff

I do not know how David Irving came to hold his view of history. He was not with the armies that liberated Europe. (I assume he was too young). I do know that the British Army overran Belsen. There must be surviving British citizens who as soldiers in 1945 saw Belsen and all its horrors. It seems a simple matter for David Irving to talk to his own countrymen and to begin his conversion. Gordon Brown, Lancing, West Sussex

The right of freedom of speech has been hard won by many generations and not to be given up lightly. Everyone has the right to be heard. If views expressed are an incitement or offensive then nobody needs to listen. We have freedom to make our own decisions about what we believe or not. Once that is removed we accelerate toward state control of everything. John Williams, Newcastle

I believe that all people should be entitled to voice their opinions as long as they do not incite violence or racial hatred. If David Irving wishes to waste his life attempting to deny irrefutable facts we should let him (he would not be the first). To jail him only suggests to his meagre supporters that he is somehow a daring truth-teller rather than a misguided fool. Darla Danya, London

When David Irving lost his case against Deborah Lipstadt he did not do so because he offended liberal sensibilities, and in so doing fell foul of the limits of freedom of speech. Nor was Irving presenting “another side” from which the Holocaust could be studied. His intention was to argue that the Holocaust was largely fictitious, an argument based on his own prejudices. He justified his argument by twisting certain facts and ignoring others. He was shown, at the trial, to have comprehensively failed to meet any historical objective standards of proof, by no less a figure than the Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University. His right to freedom of speech ought not to allow him to peddle lies that he produced with the intention of giving an intellectual justification for those who share prejudices. David Bishop, East Grinstead

This is a very good example of where the dogmatic enforcement of a human right can lead to a nonsensical outcome. The libertarian twits who bleat on about this liberty and that, do so in an ideological world with no reference to pragmatism. The “right to free speech” seems fundamental to us but this is only because we have been indoctrinated with this point of view. In point of fact, to accept life in a civilised society is to agree to abide by a code of behaviour that seeks not to offend others. To me, this is what it means to be civilised. In my view, David Irving is entitled to hold his own views on the holocaust but he has no fundamental right to inflict those views on others. However, whether he should be imprisoned for expounding his views is another matter. A better solution might be if the media practised better judgment in these matters and simply didn’t give these fruitcakes airtime! Paul Pickering, Camberley

Free speech is a right that should be vigorously defended up to the point at which it becomes offensive to a large number of people or encourages others to indulge in inappropriate behaviour. Even in our democratic society, the right to say what you think is a privilege, earned by the sacrifice of many thousands of Englishmen over the years. Abu Hamza abused that privilege and is quite rightly being prosecuted as a result. David Irving has also abused that privilege in many parts of the world. If there was any possibility that the Holocaust never happened, if the nature of the event were not so horrific and so devastating, his right to question the facts might be acceptable. But there isn’t any doubt; there are too many witnesses and the evidence is overwhelming even to those not alive at the time. To continue with his ranting is an insult to the millions who died and suffered; it is an affront to anyone with a shred of decency and it brings into question the sanity of a man once regarded as a foremost historian. I am ashamed that he is British citizen. Keith Downer, London

Either we have freedom of speech or we do not have freedom of speech. Geoffrey Wright, Sydney, Australia

As long as there is no incitement to violence he should be free to preach what he likes. There does appear to be a industry built up around the Holocaust (I do not deny its existence), which prevents the questioning of anything to do with it. This is not good if it to be presented accurately. Even loony ideas must be allowed to be aired. Also, we tend to forget the many others - 20 million Russians for example - who were murdered by the Nazis in battle or as non-combatants, many of whom died in the Nazi camps after surrender. I strongly feel that we must remember all victims of this horror and exclude none from our thoughts. Iain MacDonald, London

Free speech does not include the right to lie. The difference between a belief and a fact is that a fact can be proven. If you falsify a fact in order to accommodate and/or promote a belief, then you’re guilty of lying, and that should not be protected by free speech. Name and address withheld

He should be able to express his views in lectures and books, but not in any part of an official history course. What he says contradicts all the facts, so should not be taught. If people choose to attend his lectures and read his books, that is their choice. It is also their choice as to whether they believe him. He should not be state-endorsed, and if the state has declared Holocaust denial as a crime, then he must face the consequences in Austria. Free speech is something everyone should have, even if they are wrong and offensive. Incitement, however, is not acceptable. Daniel Simpson, Canterbury

Yes, everyone does have the right to free speech, no matter how abhorrent others may find them. That is, after all, the beauty of living in a democratic society. You can’t do much other than pity those who don’t realise that they’re making complete idiots of themselves. Ola Marki, Paris

I agree with Iain MacDonald’s sentiments; an industry as large as that surrounding the Holocaust has little validity unless it’s open to argument. However repulsive you find the work of people like David Irving, they are a requisite of a democratic society. If David Irving is the “looney” he’s made out to be, why lock him up unless there’s something to hide? The man isn’t promoting any kind of violence or hatred; he’s simply questioning historical events that the rest of us accept at face value. Harry Tuttle, Grimsby

Britain’s great gifts to America and the world were freedom of speech and trial by jury. It is sad now to see Brits willing to put an “except” on the right to speak freely. Once you start limiting speech in any way you open the door to future speech limiters. Freedom of speech must be total and without restriction. Douglas Wargo, Portland

I would like to add that I agree with Ola Marki. Let these people say what they want. The reality is, the Holocaust DID happen and people died. However, although the specific targeting of Jews by Himmler and his SS henchmen does and always should make the stomach turn, please also bear in mind the thousands/millions who died because they were Russian, handicapped, homosexual and elderly. Much is made of these Holocaust deniers, the sad reality is, some people simply do not want to see the truth. We can be a great people, but at the same time, we are capable of great cruelty to one another. History is there to teach us, to allow us to move on as a people. Allow freedom of speech, just be cautious of what and whom you listen to. Richard Callanan, Croydon

Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.