Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day019.12 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q. --- to make? Yes. It would render him virtually unpublishable in the world of serious writers? A. Yes. Q. What do you think the Second Defendant meant and the First Defendant in publishing it when they describe me as being . P-104 the most dangerous spokesman for Holocaust denial, the word "dangerous"? A. Yes, I think what was meant by that was that you more than people like, well, I think it is because you had a reputation for being a serious historian in the 1970s, 1980s, and that, therefore, that gives you a certain authority which is not the case with, say, Professor Faurisson, exProfessor Faurisson, or the other Holocaust deniers, Arthur Butts, and so on. Q. So did I suddenly go mad or something that changed me from being a translator who did not distort and did not manipulate, and I suddenly abandoned all my principles and methods and everything I had taught myself and I suddenly went wrong in some way? Is this what the allegation is? A. No, I have just described what I think the allegation is. Q. Apparently, you say that until the 1970s or 1980s I was OK? A. No, I did not say that. I was talking about your reputation. Q. Reputation? A. Even in that case, and when one goes into it (as I did) and we have been over that, there are some historians who had pointed out in the 1970s and 80s that you did engage in distortion and manipulation. Nevertheless, I think, and I have tried to convey this in talking about your reputation, that you did have quite a widespread . P-105 reputation as an expert historian of the Second World War, and that is I think what Professor Lipstadt meant by saying that you were a dangerous spokesperson for Holocaust denial. You did change your views -- you describe yourself how you changed your views as a result of the Leuchter report at the end of the 80s and the court has been into that over the past few weeks. Q. Yes, but the word "dangerous" is what I am looking at. Why is the word "dangerous" used instead of "formidable" or "one to be taken seriously"? The word "dangerous" implies that I am a danger to something, does it not? It presupposes that I am a danger -- would you say I am a danger to somebody's interests? Is this what is implied by that? A. No, I do not think that is what that means. It is difficult to second guess why the word "dangerous" is used here rather than, as you say, "persuasive" or "formidable", but I think, in the context of Professor Lipstadt's book, that means that you are more likely, indeed, to be persuasive than some of the other figures in this scene. Q. I am dangerous to the whole of existing history of the Holocaust? Is that what is implied by that? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that is, in the end, a matter for me, what Professor Lipstadt would have been understood to mean, but it seems to me it is pretty clear that the . P-106 danger is that a lot of people will -- I was going to use the word "swallow", that is a bit offensive -- accept the denial case. MR IRVING: Yes, or take it seriously and start asking awkward questions, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us proceed on that footing. MR IRVING: If you would now turn the page, my Lord, we now come to page 67, and this is where I have to ask your Lordship's guidance. The expert witness is here giving an opinion on the meaning of words, and all the authorities that I have consulted suggest that this should not be. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I am not sure I really agree with that. On the other hand ---- MR IRVING: Your Lordship agrees there are authorities that say that expert witnesses cannot give evidence on the meaning of words? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, there are, but, I mean, not in this context. I think Professor Evans is perfectly entitled to say what he understands the Holocaust to be referring to, but is it going to help me because, in a sort of broad sense, everybody knows perfectly well what is referred to by the Holocaust. MR IRVING: I strongly disagree, my Lord, with the utmost respect. We were asked this very early on by Mr Rampton, your Lordship will remember. Your Lordship will remember that I said that, to my mind, the Holocaust is the visual . P-107 image that people have. I, first of all, defined it as being the immense tragedy inflicted on the Jewish people by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II which I think is a very fine definition, but there are countless other definitions. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What I would suggest to you is that time in cross-examination of Professor Evans is not going to be well spent by discussing various meanings ---- MR IRVING: Meanings of words. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- or definitions of the Holocaust. You can do that in submission, and I think it would be much more sensible to deal with it in that way. MR IRVING: Yes. On page 71, my Lord, you will find the vague footnote that I referred to earlier. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. A. That simply says: "If you want to know more about Auschwitz read Professor Robert Jan van Pelt's report". MR IRVING: All 770 pages of it? MR RAMPTON: My Lord, it is only fair to point out that this report is directed at the court and the author of this report, Professor Evans, is entitled to assume that the court will read the whole of van Pelt's report. MR IRVING: It is a rather superfluous kind of footnote, is it not? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I understand it is a general reference to van Pelt. . P-108 A. I am simply trying to say there I really am not -- I really do not, I want to save space, I do not want to say too much about Auschwitz because that is a subject dealt with by another report. That is really all that footnote is trying to say. MR IRVING: Page 74 -- are we making fast enough progress, my Lord, now? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Faster. MR IRVING: 3.1.14, line 2, you say: "The essential point is that there is wide agreement that there was a systematic attempt". A. Yes. Q. Now, I am nervous. As soon as we have the word "systematic" coming in, of course, then the court pricks up its ears? A. Yes. Q. Is "wide agreement" sufficient proof, in your view, or do you want to be more rigorous with our methods? A. I am trying to summarize here what the concept of the Holocaust or, well, what I am saying actually is that the term, the word "Holocaust", is a secondary issue. I think in order to ---- Q. Are wide agreements always right? There was wide agreement that the earth was flat ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: We had this almost exact exchange on Thursday. . P-109 A. We have had this before. MR IRVING: I am glad that your Lordship is familiar with that. In other words, "wide agreement" is not sufficient evidence alone; we do need more rigorous support, do we not? A. What I am saying, of course, is that there is wide agreement based on an enormous amount of research into a very large quantity of documentation ---- Q. Well, did you say three lines from the bottom ---- A. --- which I do not think you can say is true of the belief that the earth is flat. Q. You do say three lines from the bottom: "The Nazi authorities also left an enormous quantity of documentation providing detail of the policy of extermination". A. Yes. Q. Have we not been hearing now for four weeks that there is no such documentation? MR RAMPTON: No, my Lord, that is simply not right. I do not know if Professor Evans has been in court all the time, I am sure he has not, but your Lordship will recall that Mr Irving himself, on the basis of a very considerable volume of documentation, has conceded -- I use that word advisedly -- not only that the systematic shooting of vast numbers of Jews in the East, in Russia, happened, but that it happened on Hitler's authority. . P-110 MR IRVING: Of course we are not talking just about the shootings on the East, are we? MR RAMPTON: Just, no. MR IRVING: We are talking about we have a major problem with what happened elsewhere. MR RAMPTON: We are talking about something like 1.2 million people, on Mr Irving's figures. MR IRVING: I think that the question I should have asked is, is there a vast body of documentation giving evidence, providing details, of the policy of extermination in Auschwitz and the other camps like that? A. That is not what I say. All I am trying to do here is to advise the court that there is a very large quantity of documentation, something which I am sure the court now realizes. Q. On page 79 at line 5 you refer to a recent Holocaust denial work. Is this a massive tome by one Barbara Kulaszka with the title: "Did Six Million Really Die"? A. I cannot recall whether it is a massive tome. Q. It is about 650 pages, A4 size? A. Edited. Q. Edited. Am I right in saying that this is an account by Barbara Kulaszka of the trial in Toronto on the history of Auschwitz, shall we say? A. I think that is right, on the Zundel trial. Q. Am I right in saying that Barbara Kulaszka, being a . P-111 solicitor of the Court of Ontario, is an officer of the court and well qualified to write this kind of summary? A. That, I am not sure. I think she has some kind of legal status. I took this to be a work of Holocaust denial from it contents. Q. So that a summary of the evidence for the Prosecution and the Defence in a law court can be taken to be a work of Holocaust denial? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Whether it could or it could not, it has nothing to do with this case. MR IRVING: My Lord, the reason I am bringing it to your Lordship's attention is that I have provided in the little bundle a two-page summary at pages 20 and 21 by this solicitor of the issues of Holocaust denial which is a very useful summary of what is said about it and what the various authorities are. That is from that particular publication. Your Lordship might find it useful at some time just to digest its contents. I put it no stronger than that. A. I do take Barbara Kulaszka to be an advocate of Holocaust denial from the contents of what she writes. Q. In other words, because a solicitor writes an account of the trial of a Holocaust denier, giving the Prosecution and Defence case, it is the work of Holocaust denial? A. Let me say, I do not think it is a neutral account and the fact that she is a solicitor is neither here nor there. . P-112 MR RAMPTON: No. In fact, I am told that she was Zundel's solicitor and also Mr Irving's. MR IRVING: Well, of course, Mr Rampton will be familiar with the concept that she is an officer of the court and is subject to certain basic principles and etiquettes. My Lord, might I suggest that we pause there for our lunch break? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, the time has come, certainly. Where are we going after the adjournment? MR IRVING: We will make future progress into the parts your Lordship is interested in. MR RAMPTON: I have laid hands on (because they have been given to me) some pages showing recent references on Mr Irving's website, I think it is Mr Irving's website, to what he calls some "traditional enemies of free speech". MR JUSTICE GRAY: Have you got a copy? MR RAMPTON: We have had these printed out. It may not be the whole story by any means. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Then you can return to this, if you want to, Mr Irving, briefly at 2.00. So 2 o'clock. (Luncheon adjournment) (2.00 p.m.) Professor Evans, recalled. Cross-Examined by Mr Irving, continued. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? . P-113 MR IRVING: My Lord, we are now well into Holocaust denial and trying to make forward progress. Professor Evans, have you had any discussion since Thursday with anybody else about the evidence you are giving, or with the instructing solicitors in this case? A. No.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor